Goldman v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Goldman v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

157 A. 802, 103 Pa. Super. 96, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 21

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 8, 1931

DocketAppeal 322

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A. 802 (Goldman v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldman v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 157 A. 802, 103 Pa. Super. 96, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 21 (Pa. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

As a result of a collision between a trolley car of the Philadelphia Eapid Transit Company and a wagon of the Abbott’s Dairies, Inc., plaintiff’s automobile *98 was damaged. Suit was brought in the municipal court for $109.60 and the ease was tried by the court without a jury. It resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $37.35.

The one assignment of error is the refusal of the court to grant a new trial and the only argument urged is that the amount of the finding is inadequate. The case requires very little comment.

It is true that an estimate furnished as to the repairs needed approximated $109.60, but there was testimony as to the actual condition of the car after the accident and the trial judge selected such items of the estimate as it was shown were the direct result of the accident. He was not compelled to accept all the items.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

As a result of a collision between a trolley car of the Philadelphia Eapid Transit Company and a wagon of the Abbott’s Dairies, Inc., plaintiff’s automobile *98 was damaged. Suit was brought in the municipal court for $109.60 and the ease was tried by the court without a jury. It resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $37.35.

The one assignment of error is the refusal of the court to grant a new trial and the only argument urged is that the amount of the finding is inadequate. The case requires very little comment.

It is true that an estimate furnished as to the repairs needed approximated $109.60, but there was testimony as to the actual condition of the car after the accident and the trial judge selected such items of the estimate as it was shown were the direct result of the accident. He was not compelled to accept all the items.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A. 802, 103 Pa. Super. 96, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-philadelphia-rapid-transit-co-pasuperct-1931.