Mars v. Meadville Telephone Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion bt
Mr. Justice Drew,
Plaintiff, Florence Mars, recovered a verdict awarding damages for the death of her husband, Arthur Mars. After motions for judgment n. o. v. and for a new trial had been refused, and judgment entered on the verdict, defendant, Meadyille Telephone Company, took this appeal.
When all doubts and conflicts in the testimony are resolved in plaintiff’s favor, as they must be in view of the jury’s verdict (Anstine v. Penna. R. R. Co., 342 Pa. 423, 425), the following facts appear: A cow belonging to Arthur Mars, the decedent, had strayed into his meadow, and while he ivas…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Gaydos v. DomabylSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Howarth v. Adams Express Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Littman v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Murray v. FrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Burrell Township v. UncapherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Skoda v. West Penn Power Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Stark v. Lehigh Foundries, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Doyle v. South Pittsburgh Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Potere v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Thornton v. WeaberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.