Winters v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Plaintiff’s amended statement of claim shows that no negligence of defendant or of Rust Engineering Company was the proximate cause of his injury: Kosson v. Power Co., 293 Pa. 131. The court properly refused to open the judgment and permit plaintiff to file the second amended statement of claim: Miller v. Merritt, 211 Pa. 127; Painter v. Pittsburgh, 46 Pa. 213; Colleoni v. Canal Co., 274 Pa. 319.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Kephabt,
Plaintiff amended his original statement of claim. An affidavit of defense was filed to this, raising questions of law. The court below held the amended statement did not show a cause of action and entered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff then petitioned the court to open the judgment and for leave to file a proposed amended statement of claim. This is an appeal from the entry of such judgment and from the order discharging the rule to open judgment.
The statement as amended shows that defendant let a contract to the Rust Engineering Company for the erection of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rhodes v. TerheydenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
3Cited by36 opinions
- Fishkin v. Hi-Acres, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Framlau Corp. v. Delaware CountySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Quaker City Chocolate & Confectionery Co. v. Delhi-Warnock Building Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Greene County v. Center TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Stevens v. Doylestown Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.