Fulton v. Peters

20 A. 936, 137 Pa. 613, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1003
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 3, 1890·No. Nos. 36, 37·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

FULTON V. PETERS.

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff complains, (a) that the learned court erred in reserving as a question of law the third point presented by defendants ; and (&) that the court erred in entering judgment for defendants, non obstante veredicto, on such reserved point. We cannot sustain either objection. There was no exception to the reservation of the point, and for anything that appears [617]*617the judgment non obstante was warranted by the record as presented.

Judgment affirmed.

FULTON V. METZGAR.

Per Curiam:

This case is identical with Fulton v. Peters, supra, in everything.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Fulton v. Peters, 20 A. 936, 137 Pa. 613, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1003 (Pa. 1890).

20 A. 936 (Fulton v. Peters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Casey v. Pennsylvania Asphalt Paving Co.
47 A. 1128 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1901)
Boyle v. Borough of Mahanoy City
40 A. 1093 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)
Ginther v. Borough of Yorkville
3 Pa. Super. 403 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)