Worrall v. Pyle
Citations
- 132 Pa. 529
- 19 A. 341
- 1890 Pa. LEXIS 847
Syllabus
<p>Although parol testimony, offered 'to re-form a written instrument and excluded, may have been admissible yet if subsequently other testimony is admitted covering about everything contained in the offers refused, the rulings complained of were harmless, and no cause of reversal is shown.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that if workers’ disability laws that expressly applied to the DRPA were substantially similar, the laws would be found to apply to the DRPA
- stating that if disability pay enactments of New Jersey and Pennsylvania were substantially similar, court could find agreement by states concerning extent of disability pay
- stating that if disability pay enactments of New Jersey and Pennsylvania were substantially similar, court could find agreement by states concerning extent of disability pay
- “neither creator state can unilaterally impose additional duties, powers, or responsibilities upon [a bi-state agency]”
- Delaware River Port Authority, being created by interstate compact, in an instrumentality of both Pennsylvania and New Jersey and neither creator state can unilaterally impose additional duties, powers or responsibilities upon the authority
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.