Butterfield v. Snellenburg
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 194, Jan. T., 1910, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1905, No. 3,365, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of William C. Butterfield and Lenore C. Butterfield, his wife, v. Nathan Snellenburg et al., copartners, trading as N. Snellenburg & Company. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Wiltbank, J. The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 194, Jan. T., 1910, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1905, No. 3,365, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of William C. Butterfield and Lenore C. Butterfield, his wife, v. Nathan Snellenburg et al., copartners, trading as N. Snellenburg & Company. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Wiltbank, J. The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial the following point of charge was presented in behalf of the defendants, which the court refused: [1. There is no evidence in the case from which the jury would be justified in finding…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
The ground on which recovery was sought was that defendants, through their agent or clerk in charge of the drug department in their general store, instead of furnishing the plaintiff for immediate use a proper and harmless dose of aromatic spirits of ammonia, for which she had applied, “ negligently prepared and compounded a dangerous, poisonous, corrosive and burning liquid mixture,” which the said servant of the defendants then and there gave the said Lenore C. Butterfield to be drunk by her. *90It is complained, “that the plaintiff then and there, in ignorance of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Incollingo v. EWINGSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Abrams v. Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- DiBelardino v. Lemmon Pharmacal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Edelstein v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1923
- Incollingo v. EWINGSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971