Markle v. Perot
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 51, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1920, No. 6484, refusing to take off nonsuit, in case of Charles D. Markle v. Thomas L. Perot. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Ferguson, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. The court entered a nonsuit which it refused to take off. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Schaefer,
Plaintiff appeals from the refusal to take off a nonsuit, the reason for its entry being that he had sued the wrong person.
Defendant was the owner of an automobile, which, while being driven by his adult son, injured the plaintiff. The reason urged by appellant for fixing liability on the father for his son’s alleged negligence, is, that the latter was a member of the former’s household, and that the automobile was used at times, for the pleasure, comfort and convenience of the family. It is not pretended that, at the time of the accident, the son was engaged on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kunkle v. ThompsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
3Cited by26 opinions
- Laubach v. ColleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Sieber v. Russ Bros. Ice Cream Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Piquet Et Ux. v. WazelleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Farbo v. CaskeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Double Et Ux. v. MyersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.