City of McKeesport v. McKeesport & Reynoldton Passenger Railway Co.

97 A. 184, 252 Pa. 142, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 584
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 3, 1916·No. Appeals, Nos. 70 and 71·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam,

These two appeals involve the same questions and were argued together. A refusal of the prayer for an instruction in each case that the plaintiff was entitled to recover would have been error, and each judgment is affirmed for the reasons given by the learned president judge of the court below in denying the motion of the defendant for judgment non obstante veredicto and directing judgment to be entered on the verdict in No. 315, [149]*149Fourth Term, 1911. What is there said applies equally to the defense of the appellants in No. 314, Fourth Term.

Judgments affirmed.

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

City of McKeesport v. McKeesport & Reynoldton Passenger Railway Co., 97 A. 184, 252 Pa. 142, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 584 (Pa. 1916).

97 A. 184 (City of McKeesport v. McKeesport & Reynoldton Passenger Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Philadelphia v. Holmes Electric Protective Co.
6 A.2d 884 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Collingdale Boro. v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
117 A. 909 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Borough of Wilkinsburg v. Public Service Commission
72 Pa. Super. 423 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1919)
Valley Rys. v. Mechanicsburg Borough
108 A. 629 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1919)