Kelso v. Phila. R. T. Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Pope v. Reading CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Grimes v. Pennsylvania R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Zotter v. Lehigh Talley R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Anspach v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Keiser v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- McAllister v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Hirth v. MaranoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Lawrence v. WinterbottomSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935