Muskegon Co. v. Keystone Mfg. Co.
19 A. 1008, 135 Pa. 132, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1158
Opinion
A careful examination of the numerous assignments has failed to satisfy us that the learned judge below committed any serious error, either in his rulings upon questions of evidence, or upon the law as applicable to the case. It was essentially a question for the jury, and it was submitted to them under adequate instructions.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Muskegon Co. v. Keystone Mfg. Co., 19 A. 1008, 135 Pa. 132, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1158 (Pa. 1890).
19 A. 1008 (Muskegon Co. v. Keystone Mfg. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Robert R. Stalik v. United States
247 F.2d 136 (Tenth Circuit, 1957)
Hardinge Co. v. Eimco Corp.
266 P.2d 494 (Utah Supreme Court, 1954)
J. B. Colt Co. v. Kimball
190 N.C. 169 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Colt v. . Kimball
129 S.E. 406 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Inter State Vaccine Co. v. Redman
20 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 17 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division, 1917)
Schirmer v. Union Brewing & Malting Co.
146 P. 194 (California Court of Appeal, 1914)
Gardner v. Deeds
116 Tenn. 128 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1905)
Dunn v. Mayo Mills
134 F. 804 (Third Circuit, 1905)
Kimball Bros. v. Deere
77 N.W. 1041 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1899)