Brink v. Borough of Dunmore

34 A. 598, 174 Pa. 395, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 895
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 16, 1896·No. Appeal, No. 124·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Our consideration of this record has not convinced us that either of the defendants’ twenty-two specifications of error ‘ should be sustained. In view of the testimony, and the learned trial judge’s instructions to the jury, their verdict necessarily imphes the finding of facts which render the borough, as well as the other defendants, hable for the trespass that was clearly and conclusively shown to have been committed. We find no substantial error, in the course of the trial, or in the submission of the case to the jury; nor, do we think there is anything in either of the questions involved that requires discussion. We are all of opinion that the judgment should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Brink v. Borough of Dunmore, 34 A. 598, 174 Pa. 395, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 895 (Pa. 1896).

34 A. 598 (Brink v. Borough of Dunmore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boorse v. Springfrield Township
103 A.2d 708 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1954)
Horn v. Co. of Northampton
159 A. 187 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Falkner v. Winfield Township
12 Pa. D. & C. 23 (Butler County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
Sisters of the Third Order of Saint Francis v. Millvale Borough
69 Pa. Super. 302 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)
Snively v. Washington Township
67 A. 465 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Reap v. City of Scranton
7 Pa. Super. 32 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)