Davidson v. Humes

41 A. 649, 188 Pa. 335, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 613
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 7, 1898·No. Appeal, No. 92·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The question whether there was any negligence on the part of the defendant in conducting the shooting of the plaintiff’s well was fairly and correctly left to the jury under proper in[345]*345structions by tbe court below. Tbe jury found a verdict in favor of the defendant and thereby determined that tbe defendant was not guilty of negligence. As there was no contract of guaranty that the well should be shot without any resulting injury, there could be no liability resulting from a breach of contract. As there was no other source of liability except these two the plaintiff could not recover. The assignments of error are all without merit and must be dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Davidson v. Humes, 41 A. 649, 188 Pa. 335, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 613 (Pa. 1898).

41 A. 649 (Davidson v. Humes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pure Torpedo Corp. v. Nation
63 N.E.2d 600 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1945)
Kentucky Glycerine Co. v. Woodruff Development Co.
25 S.W.2d 736 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1930)
Carter Oil Co. v. Independent Torpedo Co.
1924 OK 1003 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)