Coyne v. Lakeside Electric Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiffs, from judgments of C. P. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1907, Nos. 145 and 149, on verdicts for defendant in cases of Patrick J. Coyne, Sr., and Sara A., his wife, v. Lakeside Electric Railway Company and Margaret L. Coyne v. Lakeside Electric Railway Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Shay, P. J. The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in directing verdict for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
March 21, 1910:
These actions grew out of the same accident and were tried together. The only question raised by the appeals is whether the court erred in overruling the plaintiff's motion to amend the record by striking out the name of the defendant and substituting the name of another corporation, its lessee. The accident happened February 11, 1906. The motion to amend was made March 26, 1908, after the testimony at the trial was all in and it had been shown that the defendant named in the writ was the lessor of the railroad and had nothing to do with its operation. The statute of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wright v. Eureka Tempered Copper Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- LaBar v. New York, Susquehanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Holmes v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
3Cited by12 opinions
- Thompson v. PeckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Proctor v. Wells Bros. of New YorkIllinois Supreme Court · 1914
- White Co. v. Fayette Automobile Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Wagner v. New York, Ontario and Western RailwayDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
- Dress v. Schuylkill Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.