Port v. Huntingdon & Broad Top R. R.
31 A. 950, 168 Pa. 19, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 752
Opinion
An examination of this record with special reference to the specifications, discloses no substantial error. The questions involved, — so far as they are material, — have been sufficiently considered and correctly decided by the learned president of the common pleas. It is unnecessary to add anything to what has been said by him in his opinion on the questions of law reserved, etc., and on that opinion the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Port v. Huntingdon & Broad Top R. R., 31 A. 950, 168 Pa. 19, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 752 (Pa. 1895).
31 A. 950 (Port v. Huntingdon & Broad Top R. R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Peck v. SEPTA
20 Pa. D. & C.4th 338 (Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, 1993)
City of Honolulu v. Collins
42 Haw. 199 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1957)
Regina v. Monroe County
179 A. 36 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
White v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
46 Pa. Super. 372 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Brown v. Pittsburg, Carnegie & Western Railroad
29 Pa. Super. 131 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
State ex rel. Jacquith v. Wisconsin Central Railway Co.
102 N.W. 16 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
Davis v. Wheeling, Pittsburg & Baltimore Railroad
26 Pa. Super. 364 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Seattle & Montana Railroad v. Roeder
70 P. 498 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)
Clements v. Phila. Co.
3 Pa. Super. 14 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1896)