McCullough v. Cumberland Valley Railroad

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

McCullough v. Cumberland Valley Railroad

40 A. 404, 186 Pa. 112, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1028

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 9, 1896

DocketAppeal, No. 39

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A. 404 (McCullough v. Cumberland Valley Railroad) 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

McCullough v. Cumberland Valley Railroad, 40 A. 404, 186 Pa. 112, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1028 (Pa. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We are not convinced that there is any error in either of the learned trial judge’s rulings on questions of evidence referred to in the first to tenth specifications, inclusive; nor do we think the plaintiff has any just reason to complain of his refusal to affirm the points for charge recited in the eleventh and twelfth specifications. He was clearly right in refusing to instruct the jury as requested hy the plaintiff in these two points.

The subject of complaint is the affirmance of defendant’s proposition : “ That under the law and the evidence .... the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant,” and instruction to the jury in accordance therewith. In view of the evidence properly before the court, there was no error in thus withdrawing the case from the jury and directing them to find for tbe defendant. There is nothing in the case that requires further notice.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

We are not convinced that there is any error in either of the learned trial judge’s rulings on questions of evidence referred to in the first to tenth specifications, inclusive; nor do we think the plaintiff has any just reason to complain of his refusal to affirm the points for charge recited in the eleventh and twelfth specifications. He was clearly right in refusing to instruct the jury as requested hy the plaintiff in these two points.

The subject of complaint is the affirmance of defendant’s proposition : “ That under the law and the evidence .... the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant,” and instruction to the jury in accordance therewith. In view of the evidence properly before the court, there was no error in thus withdrawing the case from the jury and directing them to find for tbe defendant. There is nothing in the case that requires further notice.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A. 404, 186 Pa. 112, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-cumberland-valley-railroad-pa-1896.