City of McKeesport v. McKeesport & Reynoldton Passenger Railway Co.
This text of 97 A. 184 (City of McKeesport v. McKeesport & Reynoldton Passenger Railway 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
97 A. 184, 252 Pa. 142, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-mckeesport-v-mckeesport-reynoldton-passenger-railway-co-pa-1916.