Pennsylvania R. v. Repine

Third Circuit

Pennsylvania R. v. Repine

272 F. 898, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1708

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided May 9, 1921·No. No. 2630·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The substantial question argued at bar in this case was the instructions of the trial judge on the question whether the movement for repairs of the car with a defective coupler or brake was per se negligence. On closer examination we find no exception was taken at the trial to any part of the charge which bore on that matter. Consequently there is no foundation on which error can be assigned.

As none of the remaining assignments show error, the judgment below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The substantial question argued at bar in this case was the instructions of the trial judge on the question whether the movement for repairs of the car with a defective coupler or brake was per se negligence. On closer examination we find no exception was taken at the trial to any part of the charge which bore on that matter. Consequently there is no foundation on which error can be assigned.

As none of the remaining assignments show error, the judgment below is affirmed.

Pennsylvania R. v. Repine, 272 F. 898, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1708 (3d Cir. 1921).

Pincite

272 F. 898 (Pennsylvania R. v. Repine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related