Guemple v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 292, Jan. T., 1908, by Mary Guemple, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1902, No. 3,511, on verdict for defendant in case of Mary Guemple, Administratrix of William Guemple, deceased, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Errors assigned appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
On this appeal from the judgment on a verdict for the defendant we have two assignments of error. The first com*328plains of the court’s direction of the verdict in its favor. The affirmative answer to the point requesting such direction was not éxcepted to, and we must sustain the contention of counsel for appellee that the first assignment cannot be considered: Curtis v. Winston, 186 Pa. 492; Sibley v. Robertson, 212 Pa. 24.
The second assignment is to the disallowance of the following- question asked a witness called by the plaintiff: “ Q. When the motorman…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Curtis v. WinstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Sibley v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bank of Mifflintown v. Bank of New KensingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Commonwealth v. JohnstonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Acker ex rel. First National Bank v. DelpSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921