Borough of Shenandoah v. Erdman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
January Term, 1888, No. 41, E. D., before Gordon, Ch. J., Paxson, Sterrett, Green, Clark, aud Williams, JJ. Error to the Common Pleas of Schuylkill County to review a judgment on a verdict for the plaintiff in an action of trespass on the case.
Read the full summary
January Term, 1888, No. 41, E. D., before Gordon, Ch. J., Paxson, Sterrett, Green, Clark, aud Williams, JJ. Error to the Common Pleas of Schuylkill County to review a judgment on a verdict for the plaintiff in an action of trespass on the case. At the trial before Green, J., it appeared that the plaintiff below, a huckster dealing in- country produce, left his wagon ,- and horses unhitched in Coal street in the borough of Shenanvdoah after dark on December 8, 1884, while he went into the store of a customer to deliver eggs; and upon the horses starting to “walk off” Erdman went after them,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Justice Steerett:
The first specification of error was intended to present a question neither novel nor, if properly before us, difficult- of solution. Not novel, because it has been repeatedly declared that refusal to enter a compidsory nonsuit is not assignable for error, and not difficult because the motion to nonsuit was wholly unwarranted by any evidence in the case.
The only remaining specification, complaining of the learned judge’s refusal to direct a verdict in favor of defendant below, cannot be sustained, for the reason that the evidence adduced by plaintiff not only…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Russell v. Southwest Grease & Oil Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1974
- Ivens v. Ivens & Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1878