Fee v. Columbus Borough

31 A. 1076, 168 Pa. 382, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 807
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 20, 1895·No. Appeal, No. 203·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Considered in the light of all the testimony properly before the jury, there is no substantial error in either of the excerpts from the learned judge’s charge, recited in the first, second, seventh and eighth specifications; nor do we think there is any error in either of his answers to defendant’s requests for charge specified in the remaining four assignments. Questions of fact, necessarily for the exclusive consideration of the jury, were presented by the testimony and properly submitted to them, with instructions which appear to be substantially accurate and adequate. We find nothing in either of the assignments of error that requires special comment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Fee v. Columbus Borough, 31 A. 1076, 168 Pa. 382, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 807 (Pa. 1895).

31 A. 1076 (Fee v. Columbus Borough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walton v. Colwyn Borough
19 Pa. Super. 172 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Dutton v. Borough of Lansdowne
10 Pa. Super. 204 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)
Smith v. Borough of East Mauch Chunk
3 Pa. Super. 495 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)