Kearney v. Central Railroad

31 A. 637, 167 Pa. 362, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 912
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 8, 1895·No. Appeal, No. 229·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It is very clear that the injury complained of by plaintiff did not result from the operation of the road by the defendant who was merely the lessee thereof. If he sustained any actionable injury it must have resulted from the construction of the bridge, etc., and not from the operation of the railroad merely. The [364]*364bridge was not built by defendant company, but by another railroad company. The learned trial judge rightly held that there could be no recovery against the defendant.

There is nothing in either of the specifications that calls for discussion. They are all dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Kearney v. Central Railroad, 31 A. 637, 167 Pa. 362, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 912 (Pa. 1895).

31 A. 637 (Kearney v. Central Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marshall v. Wichita & Midland Valley Railroad
152 P. 634 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1915)
City of New Orleans v. Louisiana Savings Bank & Safe Deposit Co.
31 La. 826 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1879)