Perry v. Pittsburgh Union Passenger Ry.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 257, Oot. T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1890, No. 441, on verdict for plaintiff, W. L. Perry. Trespass for ejection from street passenger railway car. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 257, Oot. T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1890, No. 441, on verdict for plaintiff, W. L. Perry. Trespass for ejection from street passenger railway car. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Defendant’s point asking for binding instructions was refused by the court, Magee, J. [1] Plaintiff’s point was among others as follows: “ 3. That if the jury so believe they should find for the plaintiff a sufficient sum to compensate him for any loss of money and time suffered by him on account of the said trespass, also for any…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
It cannot be seriously contended that the plaintiff was not unlawfully put off of the defendant company’s car. There was no conductor on the car, and the plaintiff dropped his fare, five pennies, into the box placed in the car to receive the fares of passengers. He says in his testimony that the box had printed on the outside, “ Deposit the fare here; ” also that there was a notice on the left of the box saying, “ All passengers will please deposit their fare, as the driver is not allowed to collect or deposit it under any circumstances.” Notwithstanding this, the driver, with…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Duggan v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Stone v. C. I. T. Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Adams v. Beaver Valley Traction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Torak v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915