Conshohocken Tube Co. v. Iron Car Equipment Co.
28 A. 1119, 161 Pa. 391, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 704
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 30, 1894
DocketAppeal, No. 477
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases
This text of 28 A. 1119 (Conshohocken Tube Co. v. Iron Car Equipment 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
Conshohocken Tube Co. v. Iron Car Equipment Co., 28 A. 1119, 161 Pa. 391, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 704 (Pa. 1894).
Opinion
There is no merit in either of the specifications. The proof of plaintiff’s claim was clear, distinct, positive.and uncontradicted, and hence there was no error in directing the jury to find in favor of plaintiff for the amount of its claim.
Judgment affirmed.
Cf. Roberts v. Car Equipment Co., above, page 348.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Kisner's Estate
99 A. 168 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 A. 1119, 161 Pa. 391, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conshohocken-tube-co-v-iron-car-equipment-co-pa-1894.