Pender v. Raggs
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 23, Oct. T., 1896, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1892, No. 213, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Kennedy, P. J. The facts appear by the charge of the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 23, Oct. T., 1896, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1892, No. 213, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Kennedy, P. J. The facts appear by the charge of the court. When George P. Kretz was on the stand plaintiff offered to prove by him that the specifications required that Ruben, one of the defendants, was to be allowed to occupy the two stores that he occupied to carry on his business until the two stores next to the Duquesne Bank could be made ready to be occupied by him while the building was being erected; that…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Plaintiff’s right to recover in this case depended on questions of fact which were for the exclusive consideration of the jury; and they were accordingly submitted to them by the learned president of the common pleas with full, clear, well guarded *342and accurate instructions, under which they rendered a'Verdict that has impliedly settled every material question of fact in plaintiff’s favor. There appears to be no error in any of the court’s rulings or instructions. The case was ably and accurately tried and the judgment entered on the verdict should not be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by17 opinions
- Hennigan v. Atlantic Refining CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1967
- McGrath v. Pennsylvania Sugar Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Newingham v. J. C. Blair Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Howard Jamison, Administrator of the Estate of Albert Tucker, Deceased v. A. M. Byers CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1964
- Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.