Keller v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 215, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1892, No. 639, on verdict for plaintiff. Opinion by W. W. Porter, J. Rice, P. J., and Smith, J., dissent. Assumpsit. Before Audehreid, J. It appears from tbe record that the action was originally brought in trespass and was subsequently changed by agreement of counsel to assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 215, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1892, No. 639, on verdict for plaintiff. Opinion by W. W. Porter, J. Rice, P. J., and Smith, J., dissent. Assumpsit. Before Audehreid, J. It appears from tbe record that the action was originally brought in trespass and was subsequently changed by agreement of counsel to assumpsit. The plaintiff averred that by his agent, James W. Kerr, he made a contract in writing with the defendant whereby the defendant agreed to carry to and deliver at Frankford in the city of Philadelphia a car containing…
1Dissent
Rice, P. J., and Smith, J.,
dissenting:
It seems to us that the question whether there was an agreement which imposed on the defendant a liability as a carrier to Frankford was for the jury: Keller v. R. R. Co., 174 Pa. 62; Baltimore Steamship Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. 77. We are therefore unable to concur in the conclusion reached by the majority upon the first assignment of error.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- Keller v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896