Hunt v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 214, Jan. T., 1908, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1907, No. 2,490, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Howard A. Hunt v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Kinsey, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 214, Jan. T., 1908, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1907, No. 2,490, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Howard A. Hunt v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Kinsey, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $8,000. Subsequently on motion the court in banc entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
As suggested by the learned counsel for the appellee, there is but a single question presented for consideration on this appeal and that is whether there was any “evidence that the defendant was in control of the operation of that engine (which caused the accident) or in any way connected with it.” The trial judge held there was sufficient evidence of this fact to go to the jury, saying: “ This case is purely for the exercise of your functions, and it is not necessary for the court to at any length review the facts which as far as they go are uncontradicted.”…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Herwick v. Connellsville BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Hunt v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910