Baldwin v. Taylor
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal No. 87, July T., 1894, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., Oct. T., 1898, No. 37, on verdict for defendants. Trespass for obstructing a stairway. Before Hemphill, J. At the trial it appeared that B. F. Taylor and Joseph Bonsell were merely the agents of George D. Hayes, who was the real defendant.in the case. The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court below, discharging a rule for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal No. 87, July T., 1894, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., Oct. T., 1898, No. 37, on verdict for defendants. Trespass for obstructing a stairway. Before Hemphill, J. At the trial it appeared that B. F. Taylor and Joseph Bonsell were merely the agents of George D. Hayes, who was the real defendant.in the case. The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court below, discharging a rule for a new trial. The court charged in part as follows: “You may render your verdict for the defendant.” [2] Verdict for defendant. The court discharged a rule for a new…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Neither of the assignments of error is sustained. In his opinion discharging the rule for new trial the learned judge of the common pleas has fully and satisfactorily vindicated the correctness of his rulings. On that opinion we affirm the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by37 opinions
- Sparrow v. Airport Parking Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Morning Call, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Leininger v. GoodmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Kalins v. Commonwealth, State Real Estate CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Wiseman v. EastmanWashington Supreme Court · 1899
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.