Hamilton v. Pittock
27 A. 1079, 158 Pa. 457, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1613
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 13, 1893·No. Appeal, No. 196·Published·Cited by 14 cases
Opinion
This case involved a question of fact which was properly submitted to the jury. Neither of the specifications of error is sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hamilton v. Pittock, 27 A. 1079, 158 Pa. 457, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1613 (Pa. 1893).
27 A. 1079 (Hamilton v. Pittock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kepple v. Fairman Drilling Co.
551 A.2d 226 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)
Provo City v. Jacobsen
176 P.2d 130 (Utah Supreme Court, 1947)
Koelmel v. Kaelin
29 N.E.2d 106 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1940)
Babcock Lumber Co. v. Allison
7 A.2d 374 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Eckroat
1935 OK 539 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Titus v. Mapel-Sterling Coal Co.
167 A. 229 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Gassner v. Pierce Llewellyn
87 Pa. Super. 170 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Foster v. Focht
1924 OK 713 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Lewis v. United Natural Gas Co.
75 Pa. Super. 44 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Lynch v. Perryman
1911 OK 406 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Randall v. Lingwall
73 P. 1 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1903)
Piper v. Cashell
122 F. 614 (Ninth Circuit, 1903)
MacDonald v. O'Neil
21 Pa. Super. 364 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)