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

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

DecidedJune 12, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 138 F. 976 (Fabricant v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 F. 976, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fabricant-v-philadelphia-rapid-transit-co-circtedpa-1905.