Conover v. Bloom
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 251, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., Sept. T., 1919, No. 82, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of S. Harry Conover v. Samuel Bloom. Trespass for personal injuries and for injuries to an automobile. Before Hause, J., specially presiding. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,500. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 251, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., Sept. T., 1919, No. 82, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of S. Harry Conover v. Samuel Bloom. Trespass for personal injuries and for injuries to an automobile. Before Hause, J., specially presiding. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,500. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned, inter alia, were admission of evidence as to insurance and (6) instruction, appearing by tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court, quoting tbe record^
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sadler,
Conover brought an action of trespass against Samuel Bloom to recover, as damages sustained by reason of the negligent operation of an automobile, compensation for his personal loss, as well as for injury to his car. A trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Upon request, the jury was told that allowance could be made, in its verdict, for the delay in payment of the damages to be awarded, and the instruction given by the court is the subject of the sixth assignment of error.
In proper cases, when the action is in trespass, compensation, not exceeding the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Curran v. LorchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Pierce v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Township of Plymouth v. GraverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- McGonnell v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- City of Allegheny v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Fields v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- American Enka Company, in No. 82-1080 v. Wicaco MacHine Corp. American Enka Company v. Wicaco MacHine Corp., in No. 82-1109Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Marrazzo v. Scranton Nehi Bottling Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Wade v. S. J. Groves & Sons Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Lengle v. North Lebanon TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.