Legal Opinion

Petruska v. Packard Motor Car Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 13, 1924No. Appeal, 50PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

A joint appeal was taken from the judgments entered in the court below. When the case was called for argument the defendant, with the consent of the plaintiff’s counsel, elected to proceed on the appeal as from the judgment of Genevieve Petruska and the record was accordingly so amended. The subject for consideration is limited by the statement of the question involved to the defense that the driver of the automobile at the time of the accident was not acting as the defendant’s agent. The learned trial judge refused to give binding instructions at the defendant’s…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ritchie v. WallerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
  2. Parker v. Matheson Motor Car Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  3. Blaker v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  4. Marcus v. Gimbel Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  5. Zondler v. Foster Mfg. & Supply Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Gordon v. S. M. Byers Motor Car Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Griffith v. v. A. Simrell & Son Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Davis v. TredwellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  4. Cusick Et Ux. v. HutchisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  5. Welsh Et Ux. v. FeykaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

1 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