Ham v. Del. & H. Canal Co.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Susquehanna County
No. 36 January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 206 January Term 1889, C. P. On January 2, 1889, Matilda Ham brought trespass against the President, Managers and Company of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company, for negligence alleged to have caused the death of the plaintiff’s husband, James Ham. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Read the full summary
No. 36 January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 206 January Term 1889, C. P. On January 2, 1889, Matilda Ham brought trespass against the President, Managers and Company of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company, for negligence alleged to have caused the death of the plaintiff’s husband, James Ham. The defendant pleaded not guilty. At the trial, on August 21, 1890, the following facts were shown: On the morning of November 3,1888, the plaintiff’s husband, James Ham, a coal miner residing at Forest City, went from that place to Carbondale, about six miles distant, by the New York, Lake Erie…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Justice Green :
The seventh, eighth, and eleventh points of the defendant were refused by the learned court below, because, as the court said, they required the court to affirm or negative alleged facts as having been proven. This was an altogether mistaken view of the points. They did not ask the court to make any direction as to the facts, but they did ask the court to instruct the jury as to the law, if they found the facts to be as stated in the points. The points were purely hypothetical, in the statement of the facts mentioned, and there was ample testimony in the case to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ham v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Anderson v. Seattle-Tacoma Interurban Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1904
- Muldowney v. Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Ham v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893