Kilgallon v. President of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kilgallon v. President of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.

34 A. 597, 174 Pa. 392, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 894

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 16, 1896

DocketAppeal, No. 394

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A. 597 (Kilgallon v. President of the 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

Kilgallon v. President of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 34 A. 597, 174 Pa. 392, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 894 (Pa. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Tbe sole subject of complaint is tbe refusal of the learned trial judge to affirm defendants’ fourth request for instructions: “ Under all the evidence in this case the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant.”

There is no complaint as to any other portion of the charge; nor is there any objection to the admission or rejection of testimony. An examination of the latter discloses nothing that would have warranted an affirmance of the above quoted request. To have affirmed it would have been manifest error. In any proper view of the evidence the case was clearly for the exclusive consideration of the jury; and it was fairly submitted to them with full and adequate instructions as to the law applicable to the facts which the evidence tended to prove.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Tbe sole subject of complaint is tbe refusal of the learned trial judge to affirm defendants’ fourth request for instructions: “ Under all the evidence in this case the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant.”

There is no complaint as to any other portion of the charge; nor is there any objection to the admission or rejection of testimony. An examination of the latter discloses nothing that would have warranted an affirmance of the above quoted request. To have affirmed it would have been manifest error. In any proper view of the evidence the case was clearly for the exclusive consideration of the jury; and it was fairly submitted to them with full and adequate instructions as to the law applicable to the facts which the evidence tended to prove.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A. 597, 174 Pa. 392, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilgallon-v-president-of-the-delaware-hudson-canal-co-pa-1896.