Friedmann v. McGowan
Superior Court of Delaware
Action on the case (No. 44, February T., 1896,) damages being claimed for injuries to the plaintiff Yetta Friedmann by reason of being bitten by the dog of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Action on the case (No. 44, February T., 1896,) damages being claimed for injuries to the plaintiff Yetta Friedmann by reason of being bitten by the dog of the defendant. The narr originally filed consisted of two counts, but at the trial, upon the conclusion of the testimony, counsel for plaintiff withdrew the first count, the remaining count being as follows : ‘ ‘And also for that whereas, heretofore to wit: on the third day of December, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, the said defendant operated and conducted a certain saloon for the sale of intoxicating…
1Opinion of the Court
Eorr C. J:—
We do not think that a non suit should be granted in this case. The questions of law can be considered in the charge of the Court.
The Court charged the jury upon the various propositions of law raised by the prayers of the respective counsel as follows :
Dorr C. J.,
charging the jury :
Gentlemen of the jury :—The plaintiffs, Morris Friedmann and Yetta Friedmann his wife, seek to recover in this action damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by said wife, as the result of being bitten on December 3, 1896, in the defendant’s saloon in this city, by a vicious dog…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lewis Ex Rel. Longworth v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1849
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hazzard v. AlexanderSuperior Court of Delaware · 1934
- Hinrichs v. Davenport Locomotive WorksSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
- Buck v. BradyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
- Handy v. Uniroyal, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1971
- Merritt v. MatchettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.