Casey v. Canning
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 48, Oct. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. 1,862, for plaintiff non obstante veredicto in case of Louise E. Casey v. John Canning. Trespass for injuries to land. Before Barratt, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was in entering judgment for plaintiff non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
This was an action of trespass. The demurrer to the plaintiff’s statement of claim having been overruled, the defendant pleaded not guilty and the case went to trial on the issue thus raised. The official report of the trial shows that at the conclusion of the evidence counsel for plaintiff and for defendant orally requested binding instructions in favor of their respective clients, and that the court virtually directed a verdict for the defendant, to which direction the plaintiff excepted. Later, verdict having been rendered in accordance with the court’s direction, the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Dalmas v. KembleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Hosler v. HurshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Ringle v. Penna. R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Hygienic Fleeced Underwear Co. v. WaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Robinson v. MyersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Gaspero v. GentileSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Rice v. BauerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Casey v. CanningSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Armstrong v. DescalziSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Carrow v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.