Herron v. American Steel & Wire Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 96, Oct. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Third Term, 1907, No. 45, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Matthew Herron v. American Steel & Wire Co. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Cohen, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 96, Oct. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Third Term, 1907, No. 45, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Matthew Herron v. American Steel & Wire Co. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Cohen, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit. The case was for the jury: Knight v. Overman Wheel Co., 174 Mass. 455; Patterson v. R. R. Co., 76 Pa. 389; Wagner v. Jayne Chemical Co., 147 Pa. 475; Reese v. Clark, 198 Pa. 312. There was no negligence: Lowcock v. Paper…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
After a careful consideration of every question raised by this appeal we have concluded that the judgment of nonsuit entered by the learned court below must be affirmed. In reaching this conclusion we have found it necessary to read every word of testimony produced at *92the trial and set out in the printed record. The case bap been exceptionally well argued on both sides and nothing has been left unsaid which could be said to advantage in support of the respective contentions of the learned counsel representing the parties to the controversy. After reciting the facts…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Inland Steel Co. v. KiesslingIndiana Supreme Court · 1915
- Fitzgerald v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Gross v. Westinghouse Airbrake Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918