Cartin v. Standard Tin Plate Co.
106 A. 63, 263 Pa. 56, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 374
Opinion
The question here sought to be raised was clearly one of fact not of law, and the learned court very properly decided that into such controversy it could not enter. Poluskiewicz v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 257 Pa. 305, is a case in point.
Appeal dismissed at appellant’s cost.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cartin v. Standard Tin Plate Co., 106 A. 63, 263 Pa. 56, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 374 (Pa. 1919).
106 A. 63 (Cartin v. Standard Tin Plate Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Madison Construction Co. v. WCAB (Tascarella)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2018
Morocho v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Home Equity Renovations, Inc.)
167 A.3d 855 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)
Bele v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp.
21 A.2d 450 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)
Michetti v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund
17 A.2d 712 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Laverick v. H. B. Underwood Corp.
16 Pa. D. & C. 729 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1932)
Hager v. Norristown Magnesia Asbestos Co.
87 Pa. Super. 159 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Fillip v. Wm. Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co.
80 Pa. Super. 68 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Chovic v. Pittsburgh Crucible Steel Co.
71 Pa. Super. 350 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1919)