Wickham v. Horlacher Delivery Service, Inc.

Third Circuit

Wickham v. Horlacher Delivery Service, Inc.

130 F.2d 356, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3098

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 30, 1942

DocketNo. 7956

StatusPublished

This text of 130 F.2d 356 (Wickham v. Horlacher Delivery Service, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wickham v. Horlacher Delivery Service, Inc., 130 F.2d 356, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3098 (3d Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a negligence action to recover for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. The sole question raised on the appeal is whether the district court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any negligence on the part of the defendant. We have carefully reviewed the testimony. No useful purpose would be served by reciting it in detail. It is sufficient to say that we are satisfied that the trial judge was right in holding the evidence insufficient to establish the defendant’s negligence. See Burger v. Fischer Baking Co., 338 Pa. 110, 12 A.2d 14; Ranck v. Sauder, 327 Pa. 177, 193 A. 269.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a negligence action to recover for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. The sole question raised on the appeal is whether the district court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any negligence on the part of the defendant. We have carefully reviewed the testimony. No useful purpose would be served by reciting it in detail. It is sufficient to say that we are satisfied that the trial judge was right in holding the evidence insufficient to establish the defendant’s negligence. See Burger v. Fischer Baking Co., 338 Pa. 110, 12 A.2d 14; Ranck v. Sauder, 327 Pa. 177, 193 A. 269.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 F.2d 356, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wickham-v-horlacher-delivery-service-inc-ca3-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack