S. V. Thompson Co. v. Goldman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

S. V. Thompson Co. v. Goldman

51 Pa. Super. 632, 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 271

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 14, 1912·No. Appeal, No. 102·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Head, J.,

The facts out of which this controversy arises were fully stated when the case was formerly here, 41 Pa. Superior Ct. 209. When, as a result of that appeal, the case was retried, the court below entered a compulsory nonsuit. In the opinion filed refusing to take off that nonsuit, the learned trial judge has again fully discussed the testimony as well as the controlling principles of law. We can see nothing of value to be added to that opinion. Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we have all reached the conclusion that the case was properly tried and that the' resulting judgment should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Head, J.,

The facts out of which this controversy arises were fully stated when the case was formerly here, 41 Pa. Superior Ct. 209. When, as a result of that appeal, the case was retried, the court below entered a compulsory nonsuit. In the opinion filed refusing to take off that nonsuit, the learned trial judge has again fully discussed the testimony as well as the controlling principles of law. We can see nothing of value to be added to that opinion. Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we have all reached the conclusion that the case was properly tried and that the' resulting judgment should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

S. V. Thompson Co. v. Goldman, 51 Pa. Super. 632, 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 271 (Pa. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

51 Pa. Super. 632 (S. V. Thompson Co. v. Goldman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related