Newton v. Vulcan Iron Works

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Newton v. Vulcan Iron Works

49 A. 339, 199 Pa. 646, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 672

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 4, 1901·No. Appeal, No. 18·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The testimony introduced by the litigants required the sub[647] mission of the case to the jury. It follows that if there was no error in the charge or in the answers to the defendants’ third, sixth and seventh points, the verdict rendered and the judgment entered thereon should be sustained. An examination of the charge, and of the answers to the points referred to, have not convinced us of error in either. We therefore dismiss the specifications and affirm the judgment.

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

Per Curiam,

The testimony introduced by the litigants required the sub[647] mission of the case to the jury. It follows that if there was no error in the charge or in the answers to the defendants’ third, sixth and seventh points, the verdict rendered and the judgment entered thereon should be sustained. An examination of the charge, and of the answers to the points referred to, have not convinced us of error in either. We therefore dismiss the specifications and affirm the judgment.

Newton v. Vulcan Iron Works, 49 A. 339, 199 Pa. 646, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 672 (Pa. 1901).

Pincite

49 A. 339 (Newton v. Vulcan Iron Works) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related