Stroyd v. Traction Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 218, April T., 1900, by plaintiff, in suit of Arthur Stroyd against the Pittsburg Traction Company, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1889, No. 58, discharging rule to show cause why satisfaction on the record should not be stricken off and judgment entered for the petitioner on the verdict.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 218, April T., 1900, by plaintiff, in suit of Arthur Stroyd against the Pittsburg Traction Company, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1889, No. 58, discharging rule to show cause why satisfaction on the record should not be stricken off and judgment entered for the petitioner on the verdict. Opinion by W. D. Porter, J. Rule on defendant to show cause why receipt and satisfaction on the record should not be stricken off and judgment entered for petitioner on the verdict. Before Collier, J. It appears from the record that Arthur Stroyd when about. twelve years…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
W. D. Poster, J.,
This action was brought by Robert Stroyd as the father and next friend of his minor son, the appellant, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered by the infant through the negligence of the defendant company. The action was prosecuted in regular order and a verdict in favor of the plaintiff duly obtained. The attorney of record who had been duly *248appointed by the prochein ami received from the defendant company the amount of the verdict, gave an acquittance therefor and entered satisfaction of the verdict upon the record. The only question for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kingsbury v. BucknerSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Edsall v. VandemarkNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Salisbury Permanent Building & Loan Ass'n v. County Commissioners of Wicomico CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1898