Phillips v. St. Clair Incline Plane Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 208 and 209, Oefc. T., 1892, by plaintiffs, Joseph A. Phillips and Sallie O. Phillips, respectively, from judgments of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co.r on- verdicts for defendant non obstante veredicto. Trespass for alleged obstruction of street. At the trial, before Ewing, P. J., it appeared that the defendant company in building its railroad cut off certain alleged streets, which plaintiffs claimed were necessary to give access to their lots.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 208 and 209, Oefc. T., 1892, by plaintiffs, Joseph A. Phillips and Sallie O. Phillips, respectively, from judgments of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co.r on- verdicts for defendant non obstante veredicto. Trespass for alleged obstruction of street. At the trial, before Ewing, P. J., it appeared that the defendant company in building its railroad cut off certain alleged streets, which plaintiffs claimed were necessary to give access to their lots. Plaintiffs were tenants in common of a tract of land which by partition among themselves they divided into lots, designating, on the plan…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
A discussion of the questions raised upon this voluminous record is unnecessary. We affirm the judgment for the reasons given by the learned president of the court below on the question reserved.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Phillips v. St. Clair Incline Plane Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895