McElheny v. Pittsb. Ry. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

McElheny v. Pittsb. Ry. Co.

23 A. 392, 147 Pa. 1, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 775

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 4, 1892

DocketAppeal, No. 258

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 A. 392 (McElheny v. Pittsb. Ry. 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

McElheny v. Pittsb. Ry. Co., 23 A. 392, 147 Pa. 1, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 775 (Pa. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The single assignment of error is to the admission of evidence as to the location and height of the highway bridge. It is sufficient to say, in answer to this objection, that the subject was introduced by the appellant upon the cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witness. If we concede that it would not have been competent evidence in chief on the part of the plaintiffs, the defendant having brought it out, the plaintiffs were clearly entitled to follow it up by the questions referred to.

Judgment affirmed. C.

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

Per Curiam,

The single assignment of error is to the admission of evidence as to the location and height of the highway bridge. It is sufficient to say, in answer to this objection, that the subject was introduced by the appellant upon the cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witness. If we concede that it would not have been competent evidence in chief on the part of the plaintiffs, the defendant having brought it out, the plaintiffs were clearly entitled to follow it up by the questions referred to.

Judgment affirmed. C.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 392, 147 Pa. 1, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcelheny-v-pittsb-ry-co-pa-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack