Auslander v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Weinfeld v. FunkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Kerr Et Ux. v. Hofer (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Katterman v. StitzerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Magee v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Schornig v. SpeerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
3Cited by1 opinion
- DURHAM BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. PollardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961