Legal Opinion

Kelso v. Phila. R. T. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 27, 1933No. Appeal 21 and 22PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

James, J.,

The only question raised on these appeals is whether or not binding instructions should have been given for the defendant.

On motion for judgment non obstante veredicto the plaintiff is entitled to have the testimony in his behalf considered in its most favorable aspects and he is to be given the benefit of every pertinent fact and inference of fact reasonably deducible therefrom and all unfavorable to him rejected: Snyder v. Penn Liberty Ref. Co., 302 Pa. 320,153 A. 549; Pope v. Reading Co., 304 Pa. 326, 329, 156 A. 106. Upon that question we must give to the plaintiff the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Pope v. Reading CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Grimes v. Pennsylvania R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Zotter v. Lehigh Talley R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  4. Anspach v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  5. Keiser v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McAllister v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Hirth v. MaranoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  3. Lawrence v. WinterbottomSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API