Graft v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
January Term, 1887, No. 214, E. D., before Merour, Oh. J., Gordon, Paxson, Sterrett, Green, and Clark, JJ. Error to the Common Pleas of Eayette County to review a judgment on a verdict for the defendant in an action of trespass on the case for negligence. At the trial before Inghram, P. J., the following facts appeared : In 1882 Samuel Graft, the plaintiff in error, was employed as wreck master On the Pittsburg division of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.
Read the full summary
January Term, 1887, No. 214, E. D., before Merour, Oh. J., Gordon, Paxson, Sterrett, Green, and Clark, JJ. Error to the Common Pleas of Eayette County to review a judgment on a verdict for the defendant in an action of trespass on the case for negligence. At the trial before Inghram, P. J., the following facts appeared : In 1882 Samuel Graft, the plaintiff in error, was employed as wreck master On the Pittsburg division of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. When not thus engaged he fired in the company’s yard at Connellsville. He had worked on this road for twenty-four years. ' This division of…
1Per curiam
We see no error in the learned judge giving binding instructions to the jury to find for the defendant
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. BeazleySupreme Court of Florida · 1907
- King v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Eckman v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- Donald v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- Lease v. Pennsylvania Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.