Legal Opinion

Gross v. Clapper

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 16, 1952No. Appeal, 184PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Per Curiam,

On this appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict for defendants, plaintiff has contended that certain instructions contained in the charge of the learned trial judge were erroneous and that the lower court should not have refused her motion for a new trial. However, plaintiff failed to make any objections to the charge and did not take any exceptions thereto, either specific or general. We cannot therefore review any of the alleged errors raised by plaintiff and must sustain the judgment of the court below: Senita v. Marcy, 324 Pa. 199, 188 A. 153.

Judgment affirmed.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Senita v. MarcySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Narciso v. Mauch Chunk TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  2. Lyons v. WargoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. Neilan v. Denise Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958