Hines v. Kingston Coal Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 338, Jan. T., 1897, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Feb. T., 1892, No. 132, on verdict for defendant. Trespass to recover damages for the transportation of coal through underground workings across a strip of land claimed by plaintiffs. Before Savidge, P. J., of the 8th judicial district, specially presiding.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 338, Jan. T., 1897, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Feb. T., 1892, No. 132, on verdict for defendant. Trespass to recover damages for the transportation of coal through underground workings across a strip of land claimed by plaintiffs. Before Savidge, P. J., of the 8th judicial district, specially presiding. The facts appear by the charge of the court which was as follows : This is an action of trespass, wherein the plaintiffs, William H. Hines and E. P. Cosgrove, claim damages from the Kingston Coal Company, defendant, for the transportation by the latter of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam:,
There is nothing in this record that would justify us in sustaining either of the assignments of error. A careful consideration of the evidence discloses no disputed question of fact that should have been submitted to the jury, nor any undisputed fact or facts on which a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs could have been sustained. It therefore follows that they have no just reason to complain of anything contained in portions of the charge which constitute the first four specifications.
The learned trial judge was clearly right in holding as matter of law that the title of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. KruegerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905
- Strong v. NesbittSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Dunlop v. O'DonnellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935