Post v. American Central Insurance

51 Pa. Super. 352, 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 226
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 18, 1912·No. Appeal, No. 37·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Opinion bt

Head, J.,

In refusing the defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and directing judgment to be entered on the verdict, the learned judge of the common pleas filed an elaborate and convincing opinion. In it he reviews separately and fully each one of the legal points [364] advanced by the appellant as ground for a reversal of the judgment.

After an examination of the entire record and due consideration of the arguments of counsel, we are all of opinion the case was properly tried and the judgment should not be disturbed. To undertake to here set forth the reasons that lead us to this conclusion would be to do again what has been done by the learned trial judge. We therefore adopt his opinion. The assignments of error are overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Post v. American Central Insurance, 51 Pa. Super. 352, 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 226 (Pa. Ct. App. 1912).

51 Pa. Super. 352 (Post v. American Central Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clingerman v. Everett Cash Mutual Fire Insurance
188 A. 93 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Allegro v. Rural Valley Mut. Fire Ins.
112 A. 140 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Krogulski v. Northwestern National Insurance
68 Pa. Super. 47 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Kearney v. Security Ins.
67 Pa. Super. 179 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Robson v. Pennsylvania Mutual Live Stock Insurance
57 Pa. Super. 491 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)