Gross v. Clapper

85 A.2d 618, 369 Pa. 348, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 277
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 16, 1952·No. Appeal, 184·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Opinion

Per Curiam,

On this appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict for defendants, plaintiff has contended that certain instructions contained in the charge of the learned trial judge were erroneous and that the lower court should not have refused her motion for a new trial. However, plaintiff failed to make any objections to the charge and did not take any exceptions thereto, either specific or general. We cannot therefore review any of the alleged errors raised by plaintiff and must sustain the judgment of the court below: Senita v. Marcy, 324 Pa. 199, 188 A. 153.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gross v. Clapper, 85 A.2d 618, 369 Pa. 348, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 277 (Pa. 1952).

85 A.2d 618 (Gross v. Clapper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Neilan v. Denise Coal Co.
142 A.2d 322 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Lyons v. Wargo
126 A.2d 411 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1956)
Narciso v. Mauch Chunk Township
87 A.2d 233 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1952)