Curatolo v. Venafrana Beneficial Society St. Nicandro
This text of 70 Pa. Super. 542 (Curatolo v. Venafrana Beneficial Society St. Nicandro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The plaintiff recovered a verdict, and after a hearing on a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto the judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. A careful examination of the testimony has convinced us that the case falls within the ruling of Earp v. Cummings, 54 Pa. 394, which has been followed in many cases in the Supreme, and in this court: Kifer v. Yoder, 198 Pa. 308; Speer v. Benedum Trees Oil Co., 239 Pa. 180; Groskin v. Moore, 249 Pa. 242; Barker v. Miller, 41 Pa. Superior Ct. 442, and cases noted in the opinion filed in the court below.
The conclusion reached by the trial judge in disposing of the motion is sustained by the authorities on which he relied.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
70 Pa. Super. 542, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curatolo-v-venafrana-beneficial-society-st-nicandro-pasuperct-1918.