Legal Opinion

Foster v. Waybright

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 21, 1951No. Appeal, 87PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mb. Justice Bell,

This appeal involves the narrow question: Was there a palpable abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting a new trial?

Plaintiff brought an action of trespass against defendant Waybright for wrongfully, wilfully and maliciously cutting and removing timber from his land. Rosner, who authorized Waybright to cut the timber, was brought onto the record as an additional defendant. The jury returned a verdict of $6000. in favor of the plaintiff and against Rosner.

The court below in granting a new trial, said: . . the sole reason for granting the new trial was, that…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Marko v. MendelowskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. Hughes v. StevensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
  3. Tupponce v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  4. Girard Trust Co. v. George v. Cresson Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  5. Henning v. KeiperSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Bellettiere v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Commonwealth v. PowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Clewell v. PummerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  4. Sherman v. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  5. Commonwealth v. ChopakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API