Goodman v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Goodman v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.

31 A. 670, 167 Pa. 332, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 905

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 8, 1895

DocketAppeal, No. 49

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A. 670 (Goodman v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodman v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 31 A. 670, 167 Pa. 332, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 905 (Pa. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

To have directed a verdict for the defendant company, as requested in its 11th point, would have been manifest error. The testimony tending to prove that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury was quite sufficient to not only carry the case to the jury, but to justify them in finding as they did. The case was carefully and ably tried. There appears to be nothing whatever in the record to justify a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

To have directed a verdict for the defendant company, as requested in its 11th point, would have been manifest error. The testimony tending to prove that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury was quite sufficient to not only carry the case to the jury, but to justify them in finding as they did. The case was carefully and ably tried. There appears to be nothing whatever in the record to justify a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A. 670, 167 Pa. 332, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-delaware-hudson-canal-co-pa-1895.