Behl v. Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Behl v. Philadelphia

55 A. 1029, 206 Pa. 329, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 710

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 25, 1903

DocketAppeal, No. 358

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A. 1029 (Behl v. Philadelphia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Behl v. Philadelphia, 55 A. 1029, 206 Pa. 329, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 710 (Pa. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The jolt of the wagon by which plaintiff’s husband was thrown off might have occurred either from the wheel slipping into the hole or rut beside the railway track, as testified to on the part of the plaintiff, or by its having caught in the frog of the railway track and given the wagon a sudden twist, as claimed by the defendant. There was positive testimony both ways from witnesses who were present at the time. The case was therefore clearly for the jury notwithstanding the fact that the witnesses for the defense were the most numerous.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The jolt of the wagon by which plaintiff’s husband was thrown off might have occurred either from the wheel slipping into the hole or rut beside the railway track, as testified to on the part of the plaintiff, or by its having caught in the frog of the railway track and given the wagon a sudden twist, as claimed by the defendant. There was positive testimony both ways from witnesses who were present at the time. The case was therefore clearly for the jury notwithstanding the fact that the witnesses for the defense were the most numerous.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A. 1029, 206 Pa. 329, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behl-v-philadelphia-pa-1903.