Legal Opinion

Fertax Co. v. Spiegelman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 24, 1928No. Appeals, 83 and 84, 117, 118PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

These four appeals involve two actions of assumpsit instituted by the same plaintiff against two different defendants, wherein the jury rendered verdicts for both of the latter. Plaintiff filed motions in each case for judgment non obstante veredicto and for a new trial. The court below refused the motions for judgment n. o. v., and plaintiff has taken appeals from the orders to that effect; it granted the motions for a new trial, and each defendant has appealed from these orders. All of the appeals will be disposed of together.

In its opinion in support of the orders appealed from,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. March v. Philadelphia & West Chester Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Regan v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Pringle v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  4. Jones v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  5. Baranowski v. Lackawanna & Wyoming Valley R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Casey v. SicilianoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Schroeder v. Gulf Ref. Co., (No. 2)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Broomall v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  4. Pawlowski v. SczehowiczSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  5. Trimble v. Mennel Milling Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API