Fabricant v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Fabricant v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

138 F. 976, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4654

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania·Decided June 12, 1905·Published

Opinion

HOLLAND, District Judge.

This case was an action for damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, tried in this court April 6, 1905, and resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,600. Motion for a new trial was duly made. The reasons assigned have been considered, but we fail to find any error either in the trial or the charge of the court. The case was fairly submitted to the jury, and the verdict was justified by the evidence in the cause. The fact that neither party is entirely satisfied with the result is no reason why a new trial should be granted after a fair hearing before an impartial jury.

The motion for a new trial is therefore overruled.

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

HOLLAND, District Judge.

This case was an action for damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, tried in this court April 6, 1905, and resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,600. Motion for a new trial was duly made. The reasons assigned have been considered, but we fail to find any error either in the trial or the charge of the court. The case was fairly submitted to the jury, and the verdict was justified by the evidence in the cause. The fact that neither party is entirely satisfied with the result is no reason why a new trial should be granted after a fair hearing before an impartial jury.

The motion for a new trial is therefore overruled.

Fabricant v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 138 F. 976, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4654 (circtedpa 1905).

Pincite

138 F. 976 (Fabricant v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.