McMullen v. Carnegie Bros. & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 280, Oct. T., 1893, by plaintiff, Celia McMullen, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1893, No. 17, entering nonsuit in favor of defendant, Carnegie Brothers & Co., Ltd. Trespass for death of plaintiff’s husband. At the trial, before McClung, J., it appeared that plaintiff’s husband was a brakeman in the employ of defendant company.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 280, Oct. T., 1893, by plaintiff, Celia McMullen, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1893, No. 17, entering nonsuit in favor of defendant, Carnegie Brothers & Co., Ltd. Trespass for death of plaintiff’s husband. At the trial, before McClung, J., it appeared that plaintiff’s husband was a brakeman in the employ of defendant company. Defendant owned and operated an extensive plant at Braddock for the manufacture of steel rails and other products from iron. It owned a number of miles of railroad tracks and switches, connecting its mills with neighboring railroads.…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
We are satisfied, from an examination of the testimony in *521this case, that there was no error in refusing to take off the judgment of nonsuit; and, for the reasons given in the opinion of the learned judge of the court below, the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. BatesIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
- Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. PrzezdziankowskiIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
- Dominices v. Monongahela Connecting RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Rylander v. Chicago Short Line Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1958
- Allen v. Larabee Flour Mills Corp. & Union Terminal Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.