Hadley v. City of Coatesville

78 Pa. Super. 469, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 142
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hadley v. City of Coatesville. Read the opinion of the Court — 78 Pa. Super. 465
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 3, 1922·No. No. 2; Appeal, No. 203·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The plaintiff is the husband of Elizabeth H. Hadley who was injured by a fall on one of the public streets in Coatesville. His action arises out of that injury. The defense presented at the trial was the contributory negligence of Mrs. Hadley. The verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff, and from the judgments entered appeals were taken. The question raised on this appeal was considered in the appeal of the same defendant from the judgment of Elizabeth H. Hadley in which appeal we held that the defense presented was not sufficient.

For the same reason the judgment in this case is affirmed.

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

Hadley v. City of Coatesville, 78 Pa. Super. 469, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 142 (Pa. Ct. App. 1922).

78 Pa. Super. 469 (Hadley v. City of Coatesville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.