Legal Opinion

Sandy v. Swift & Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Decided February 7, 1908No. 30Published

At Eaw. Motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

1Opinion of the Court

HOLLAND, District Judge.

Mrs. Sandy, a married woman, was injured by a fall alleged to be caused by the negligent action of the defendant’s driver in suddenly turning off Germantown avenue west on Duval street in the city of Philadelphia. Suit was instituted both by herself and her husband, and under the Pennsylvania practice both actions were tried together, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. After both sides had closed the defendant requested binding instructions in its favor, which were refused by the court. Under the Pennsylvania act of 1905 (P. L. 286), which provides…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ewing v. Pittsb. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
  2. Huston v. Freemansburg BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  3. Linn v. Duquesne BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  4. Foote v. American Product Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
  5. Shaughnessy v. Consolidated Traction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901

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

Powered by the Exa API