Smith v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Smith v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R.

24 A. 304, 149 Pa. 249, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1108

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 23, 1892

DocketAppeal, No. 34

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 24 A. 304 (Smith v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R., 24 A. 304, 149 Pa. 249, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1108 (Pa. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

There are twelve specifications of error in this case, all of which relate to the charge of the court and answers to points. A careful examination of them fails to disclose substantial error. The defendant company had a right to make reasonable regulations in regard to the use of its station. It had a right to order that hacks should not stand in front of the entrance, and the plaintiff having willfully disobeyed such order, it was competent to remove him. In doing so, no more force appears to have been employed than was necessary. A number of points were submitted by the plaintiff, which, as abstract propositions, are undoubtedly correct. They were refused by the learned judge below, upon the ground that they had no application to the facts of the case. In this he was right.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

There are twelve specifications of error in this case, all of which relate to the charge of the court and answers to points. A careful examination of them fails to disclose substantial error. The defendant company had a right to make reasonable regulations in regard to the use of its station. It had a right to order that hacks should not stand in front of the entrance, and the plaintiff having willfully disobeyed such order, it was competent to remove him. In doing so, no more force appears to have been employed than was necessary. A number of points were submitted by the plaintiff, which, as abstract propositions, are undoubtedly correct. They were refused by the learned judge below, upon the ground that they had no application to the facts of the case. In this he was right.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A. 304, 149 Pa. 249, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-n-y-l-e-w-r-r-pa-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack