Hennessy v. Anstock
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 55, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant-, from judgment of C. P. Columbia Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 291, on verdict for plaintiff in case of M. I. Hennessy v. Fannie Anstock. Trespass for injuries to land.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 55, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant-, from judgment of C. P. Columbia Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 291, on verdict for plaintiff in case of M. I. Hennessy v. Fannie Anstock. Trespass for injuries to land. Before Little, P. J. Tbe plaintiff’s statement after describing by metes and bounds plaintiff’s lot, declared as follows: “ That the said defendant did on or about September 7, 1898, unlawfully and without right, place, deposit, erect and maintain a certain obstruction, barrier and partition composed of wood and iron, and from said day to the present time has constantly continued,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The assignment of error, consisting of extracts from the charge, trenches closely on the rule that only one distinct question shall be raised in any assignment, since it lumps together the views of the trial judge respecting the submission of the case to the jury, the measure of damages, and a discussion of the rights of landowners to the use of the highway in front of their premises. It cannot be contended that all of this is erroneous ; and if there is error in any portion, our rules require the party complaining of this to point it out specifically and by' itself. An…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Clark v. LindsaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3Cited by4 opinions
- Leh v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Hale v. HaleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Logan v. Pennsylvania Telephone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Friedman v. UrmannSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905