Markley v. Godfrey
98 A. 785, 254 Pa. 99, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 691
Opinion
The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the learned president judge of the court below discharging the rule for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Markley v. Godfrey, 98 A. 785, 254 Pa. 99, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 691 (Pa. 1916).
98 A. 785 (Markley v. Godfrey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
EDU, LLC v. Rota, P.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018
City of Buffalo v. Strong & Co.
106 N.E.2d 217 (New York Court of Appeals, 1952)
Matevish v. Ramey Borough School District
74 A.2d 797 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Warner Bros. Theatres, Inc. v. Proffitt
198 A. 56 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Bonner v. Randal
7 Pa. D. & C. 294 (Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)
Riddle Co. v. Taubel
120 A. 776 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Hannan v. Carroll
120 A. 665 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Riddle Co. v. Taubel
2 Pa. D. & C. 247 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)
Hirst v. Freeman
1 Pa. D. & C. 675 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)
Vilsack v. Wilson
112 A. 17 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)