Brunner v. American Telegraph & Telephone Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Brunner v. American Telegraph & Telephone Co.

28 A. 690, 160 Pa. 300, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 806

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 12, 1894

DocketAppeal, No. 89

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 A. 690 (Brunner v. American Telegraph & Telephone Co.) 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

Brunner v. American Telegraph & Telephone Co., 28 A. 690, 160 Pa. 300, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 806 (Pa. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case depended on questions of fact which were for the exclusive consideration and determination of the jury. There [303]*303is no complaint as to the admission or rejection of evidence. The testimony was fairly submitted to the jury in a clear and impartial charge in which their attention was called to the facts which it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to their verdict. The verdict that was rendered by the jury is necessarily predicated of their having found those facts substantially as claimed by plaintiff.

The first specification complains of a part of the charge recited therein. There is nothing in this excerpt that the testimony did not warrant the learned trial judge in saying. There was some evidence tending to prove that Livingston was present when the cap was exploded, etc.

The next seven specifications are to the refusal of the court to affirm defendant’s points for charge therein recited. We are satisfied from an examination of the questions involved that there was no error in refusing to affirm either of said points.

There is no error, in that part of the charge covered by the ninth and last specification, of which the defendant has any just reason to complain. We find nothing in the record that' would justify a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This case depended on questions of fact which were for the exclusive consideration and determination of the jury. There [303]*303is no complaint as to the admission or rejection of evidence. The testimony was fairly submitted to the jury in a clear and impartial charge in which their attention was called to the facts which it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to their verdict. The verdict that was rendered by the jury is necessarily predicated of their having found those facts substantially as claimed by plaintiff.

The first specification complains of a part of the charge recited therein. There is nothing in this excerpt that the testimony did not warrant the learned trial judge in saying. There was some evidence tending to prove that Livingston was present when the cap was exploded, etc.

The next seven specifications are to the refusal of the court to affirm defendant’s points for charge therein recited. We are satisfied from an examination of the questions involved that there was no error in refusing to affirm either of said points.

There is no error, in that part of the charge covered by the ninth and last specification, of which the defendant has any just reason to complain. We find nothing in the record that' would justify a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A. 690, 160 Pa. 300, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunner-v-american-telegraph-telephone-co-pa-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack