Martin v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Martin v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

50 A. 193, 200 Pa. 603, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 540

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 11, 1901

DocketAppeal, No. 16

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A. 193 (Martin v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway 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

Martin v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co., 50 A. 193, 200 Pa. 603, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 540 (Pa. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cukiam,

This was an action of trespass in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for an injury he alleged he received while in the service of the defendant company and through its negligence. Having presented on the trial all of the testimony which he deemed important and pertinent, he rested his case, and he was then met by a motion from the defendant’s counsel for a nonsuit which the court below allowed, and which upon careful consideration he refused to take off. The only ques[611]*611tion presented for consideration on this appeal was whether there was error in the refusal aforesaid.

We have carefully examined and considered all the testimony presented and relied on by the plaintiff in connection with the elaborate and satisfactory opinion of the court below, and our conclusion is that no error was committed in the allowance of the nonsuit or the refusal to take it off.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Cukiam,

This was an action of trespass in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for an injury he alleged he received while in the service of the defendant company and through its negligence. Having presented on the trial all of the testimony which he deemed important and pertinent, he rested his case, and he was then met by a motion from the defendant’s counsel for a nonsuit which the court below allowed, and which upon careful consideration he refused to take off. The only ques[611]*611tion presented for consideration on this appeal was whether there was error in the refusal aforesaid.

We have carefully examined and considered all the testimony presented and relied on by the plaintiff in connection with the elaborate and satisfactory opinion of the court below, and our conclusion is that no error was committed in the allowance of the nonsuit or the refusal to take it off.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A. 193, 200 Pa. 603, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-philadelphia-reading-railway-co-pa-1901.