Legal Opinion

Barton v. Craighill

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 31, 1920No. Appeal, No. 178PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal, No. 178, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1919, No. 1352, for defendant n. o. v., in case of Anna E. Barton v. James R. Craighill. Trespass for personal injuries.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 178, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1919, No. 1352, for defendant n. o. v., in case of Anna E. Barton v. James R. Craighill. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Shaper, P. J. Verdict for plaintiff for |2,480. Shaper, P. J., entered judgment for defendant n. o. v. in the following opinion: The action is by a pedestrian on a street of the City of Pittsburgh against the owner of a truck which was being driven along the street by an employee of the owner. The truck was loaded with two large iron beams, one on each side, each of which…

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the learned president judge of the court below granting defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

Judgment affirmed.

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dorris v. Bridgman & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  2. Osby v. TarltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  3. Seader v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  4. Miller v. Utah Light & Traction Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Seader v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API