Urban v. Focht
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 34, Jan. T., 1911, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Berks Co., Aug. T., 1902, No. 83, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Charles E. Urban, by his next friend and father, Clemens Urban, v. Levi H. Focht. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 34, Jan. T., 1911, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Berks Co., Aug. T., 1902, No. 83, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Charles E. Urban, by his next friend and father, Clemens Urban, v. Levi H. Focht. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. At the trial the court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off, Endlich, P. J., filing the following opinion: The Colonial Trust Co. contracted with defendant for the erection of a building which involved certain work subsequently, by mutual consent, taken out of his hands and given to another…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in Judge Endlich’s opinion, discharging the rule to take off the nonsuit.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Dimarco v. Penna. R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Sharble v. Kuehnle-Wilson, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Onstott v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Roberts v. Kelly Axe & Tool Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1927
- DiMarco v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.