Hobel v. Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 199, Oct. T., 1911, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lawrence Co., Dec. T., 1908, No. 34, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Charles Hobel v. Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Company. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Porter, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. See 229 Pa. 507. Error assigned was in refusing defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The error assigned is that the court refused to enter judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto and the only question to be considered is whether there was any testimony on behalf of the plaintiff, which, if believed, entitled him to a verdict. The Act of April 22, 1905, P. L. 286, which gives the court authority to enter judgment non obstante veredicto when a request for binding instructions has been declined at the trial makes no radical innovation on the settled line of distinction between the power of the court and of the jury. Judgment cannot be entered against the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dalmas v. KembleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Hobel v. Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
3Cited by5 opinions
- Derrick v. Harwood Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Shane v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1942
- Gower v. City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1922
- Papoulas v. West Penn Aviation, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1950
- Wanamaker v. Beamesderfer, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1923