Bair v. Adams Express Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 134, Oct. T., 1916, by plaintiff, from judgment of G. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1915, No. 29, on verdict for defendant in case of John D. Bair v. Adams Express Oo. Assumpsit to recover the value of certain horses shipped under a live stock contract. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 134, Oct. T., 1916, by plaintiff, from judgment of G. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1915, No. 29, on verdict for defendant in case of John D. Bair v. Adams Express Oo. Assumpsit to recover the value of certain horses shipped under a live stock contract. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant. On a rule for a new trial Hassler, J., filed the following opinion: The plaintiff, through an agent, on August 3, 1914, entered into a written contract with the defendant company, wherein it agreed to transport and deliver a carload of horses for…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The opinion of Judge Hassler in discharging the rule for a new trial, fully answers the questions raised by appellant. Whatever of conflict there may be between Trace v. R. R. Co., 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 466, and Ridge v. Erie R. R., 54 Pa. Superior Ct. 602, must be held to be settled by the latter case in favor of the conclusions therein reached.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Trace v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Ridge v. Erie Railroad Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
3Cited by3 opinions
- Turek, Admrx. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Atlantic Refining Co. v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- American Railway Express Co. v. Ewing Thomas Converting Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1923