Penman v. McKeesport, Duquesne & Wilmerding Railway

50 A. 973, 201 Pa. 247, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 815
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 6, 1902·No. Appeal, No. 45·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Pee Ctteiam,

The learned court below directed a judgment of compulsory nonsuit and refused to take off the same. The direction was based on contributory negligence of the plaintiff which appears to be in accord with Gilmartin v. Lackawanna Valley Rapid Transit Co., 186 Pa. 193, and Warner v. Peoples’ St. Railway Company, 141 Pa. 615. The testimony in the case clearly showed the negligence of the plaintiff and fully justified the action of the court in directing the nonsuit and refusing to set it aside. The opinion prepared and filed by Judge Kennedy furnished a satisfactory explanation and justification of his refusal to reinstate the plaintiff when it was apparent that he had no cause of action.

Judgment of nonsuit affirmed.

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

Penman v. McKeesport, Duquesne & Wilmerding Railway, 50 A. 973, 201 Pa. 247, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 815 (Pa. 1902).

50 A. 973 (Penman v. McKeesport, Duquesne & Wilmerding Railway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sipko v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
2 A.2d 717 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Rothweiler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
93 Pa. Super. 369 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Barto v. Beaver Valley Traction Co.
65 A. 792 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Holt v. Pennsylvania Railroad
55 A. 1055 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)