Wellman v. Borough of Susquehanna Depot

31 A. 566, 167 Pa. 239, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 885
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 1, 1895·No. Appeal, No. 41·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It is not alleged that there was any error in the admission or rejection of evidence. In view of the testimony properly before the jury, the case involved the questions of defendant’s negligence and the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Both of these controlling questions of fact were for the exclusive consideration of the jury, and to them they were fairly submitted in a clear, concise and fully adequate charge, to which no just exception can be taken. The verdict in favor of plaintiff is necessarily predicated of a finding, in his favor, of every material fact. The record discloses no error that would justify us in disturbing the verdict. There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires special comment.

The ease was ably and correctly tried, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Wellman v. Borough of Susquehanna Depot, 31 A. 566, 167 Pa. 239, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 885 (Pa. 1895).

31 A. 566 (Wellman v. Borough of Susquehanna Depot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Keller v. City of Port Washington
227 N.W. 284 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1929)
Kirkham v. City of Kansas City
132 P. 160 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1913)
Shriver v. County Court of Marion County
66 S.E. 1062 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1910)
Allen v. Township of Warwick
9 Pa. Super. 507 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)