Legal Opinion

Auslander v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 29, 1944No. Appeal, 226PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order granting a new trial. The trial judge had admitted a certified transcript of the proceedings before an alderman, offered in evidence by defendant. The learned court below en banc says: “We believe this to have been substantial and prejudicial error such as warrants a new trial, and for that reason alone a new trial will be granted: Magee v. Scott, 32 Pa. 539-540; Katterman v. Stitzer, 7 Watts 189-192; Wol verton v. Com., for use, 7 S. & R. 273-4; Miller v. Brink, 14 D. & C. 292.”

We agree that the admission of the transcript was prejudicial error. There…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Weinfeld v. FunkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  2. Kerr Et Ux. v. Hofer (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Katterman v. StitzerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
  4. Magee v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
  5. Schornig v. SpeerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. DURHAM BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. PollardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API