Stiffel & Freeman Co. v. American Ferrofix Brazing Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Stiffel & Freeman Co. v. American Ferrofix Brazing Co.

183 F. 512, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5700

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 6, 1910

DocketNo. 1,028

StatusPublished

This text of 183 F. 512 (Stiffel & Freeman Co. v. American Ferrofix Brazing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stiffel & Freeman Co. v. American Ferrofix Brazing Co., 183 F. 512, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5700 (circtedpa 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

In my opinion there was competent testimony concerning the cause of the explosion, which required the court to submit the question. The witnesses did not agree, and the jury alone could decide the dispute, and say what the facts were and what inferences were properly to be drawn therefrom. The verdict was not a guess, without evidence. Concededly the defendant’s agent was in a position where his incautious act might do harm; he was about to use a tool with which a spark might be generated; and I think the inference was legitimate that the explosion was the effect of such a spark. No doubt there was opposing testimony concerning the cause of the disaster, but the jury was the sole judge in this controversy.

A new trial is refused. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict is also refused, and to this refusal an exception is granted in favor of the defendant.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

In my opinion there was competent testimony concerning the cause of the explosion, which required the court to submit the question. The witnesses did not agree, and the jury alone could decide the dispute, and say what the facts were and what inferences were properly to be drawn therefrom. The verdict was not a guess, without evidence. Concededly the defendant’s agent was in a position where his incautious act might do harm; he was about to use a tool with which a spark might be generated; and I think the inference was legitimate that the explosion was the effect of such a spark. No doubt there was opposing testimony concerning the cause of the disaster, but the jury was the sole judge in this controversy.

A new trial is refused. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict is also refused, and to this refusal an exception is granted in favor of the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 F. 512, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stiffel-freeman-co-v-american-ferrofix-brazing-co-circtedpa-1910.