Curatolo v. Venafrana Beneficial Society St. Nicandro

70 Pa. Super. 542, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 303
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 12, 1918·No. Appeal, No. 29·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

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

Curatolo v. Venafrana Beneficial Society St. Nicandro, 70 Pa. Super. 542, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 303 (Pa. Ct. App. 1918).

70 Pa. Super. 542 (Curatolo v. Venafrana Beneficial Society St. Nicandro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jacobs v. McKelvey
197 A. 494 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Martin v. Gelbach
93 Pa. Super. 570 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Sowney v. Bair
112 A. 530 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)