Legal Opinion · Dissent

Irwin Savings & Trust Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 10, 1944No. Appeals, 114-118Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Maxey :

I dissent from the majority opinion. The negligence of the defendant company in failing to keep its culvert open to carry off the water from a small sulphur stream under its track (a thing which it could do at a trifling expense), and so creating a large pond on the Montecupo land is clear: Ficke v. Pa. R. R. Co., 157 Pa. 622, 626, 27 A. 783; Harber v. Pa. Ry. Co., 56 Pa. Superior Ct. 59, 64-65. See also 67 C. J. pp. 869, 873, Secs. 294(2) and 296(c). This negligence is so indisputable that in this appeal the defendant Railroad Company does not…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
  3. Best v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. City of Indianapolis v. EmmelmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Nelson v. Duquesne Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939

19 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