Marguerite Harshman, Administratrix of the Estate of Ray E. Harshman, Deceased v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, a Corporation

Third Circuit

Marguerite Harshman, Administratrix of the Estate of Ray E. Harshman, Deceased v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, a Corporation

278 F.2d 331, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4542

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 17, 1960

Docket13155_1

StatusPublished

This text of 278 F.2d 331 (Marguerite Harshman, Administratrix of the Estate of Ray E. Harshman, Deceased v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, a Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marguerite Harshman, Administratrix of the Estate of Ray E. Harshman, Deceased v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, a Corporation, 278 F.2d 331, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4542 (3d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ray E. Harshman, in his lifetime, suffered an accident while in the employ of the defendant railroad company. He has since died from causes unconnected with the accident and this action has been continued by his administratrix. The merits of the plaintiff’s case were thoroughly discussed at a pre-trial hearing. At its *332 conclusion and upon receipt of a supplementary memorandum from the plaintiff, the trial judge caused judgment to be entered in favor of the defendant. The basis of the court’s action was that, assuming the plaintiff could prove all the facts which she alleged she was prepared to prove and assuming further that the plaintiff’s position on the admissibility of certain statements was decided in favor of the plaintiff, still no claim on which recovery could be had was shown. We think the trial judge was right in his conclusion. We do not, therefore, need to go into the always difficult question of when hearsay statements may be received as part of the res gestae.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ray E. Harshman, in his lifetime, suffered an accident while in the employ of the defendant railroad company. He has since died from causes unconnected with the accident and this action has been continued by his administratrix. The merits of the plaintiff’s case were thoroughly discussed at a pre-trial hearing. At its *332 conclusion and upon receipt of a supplementary memorandum from the plaintiff, the trial judge caused judgment to be entered in favor of the defendant. The basis of the court’s action was that, assuming the plaintiff could prove all the facts which she alleged she was prepared to prove and assuming further that the plaintiff’s position on the admissibility of certain statements was decided in favor of the plaintiff, still no claim on which recovery could be had was shown. We think the trial judge was right in his conclusion. We do not, therefore, need to go into the always difficult question of when hearsay statements may be received as part of the res gestae.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 F.2d 331, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marguerite-harshman-administratrix-of-the-estate-of-ray-e-harshman-ca3-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack