Wensel v. Standard Supply & Equipment Co.

72 Pa. Super. 56, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 247
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 17, 1919·No. Appeal, No. 54·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The assignments of error urge but two questions; first, in admitting certain evidence as to the earning capacity of the plaintiff, and second, that the verdict was excessive. The charge of the court in submitting these questions was so satisfactory that no exception was taken to it. They were rightly and fairly submitted under rules laid down in many of our decisions: McLaughlin v. Corry, 77 Pa. 109; Yeager v. Anthracite Brewing Co., 259 Pa. 123; De Haas v. P. R. R. Co., 261 Pa. 499. The rule for a new trial was rightly discharged, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Wensel v. Standard Supply & Equipment Co., 72 Pa. Super. 56, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 247 (Pa. Ct. App. 1919).

72 Pa. Super. 56 (Wensel v. Standard Supply & Equipment Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCandless v. Maguire
78 Pa. D. & C. 291 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1951)
McCullough v. Holland Furnace Co.
141 A. 623 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)