Peterson v. Wiggins
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 302, Jan. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1904, No. 2,488, for defendants non obstante vere-dicto in case of Matilda Peterson v. John R. Wiggins et al. copartners, trading as John R. Wiggins & Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff's husband.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 302, Jan. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1904, No. 2,488, for defendants non obstante vere-dicto in case of Matilda Peterson v. John R. Wiggins et al. copartners, trading as John R. Wiggins & Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff's husband. Before Willson, P. J. At the trial defendants made the following offer: Mr. Bracken offered in evidence record in the case of Matilda Peterson v. Lewis G. Shoemaker and Thomas C. Satterthwaite, copartners, trading as Lewis G. Shoemaker & Company, court of common pleas No. 5,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Stewabt,
If it be a fact appearing in the case that the present action was brought against defendants for a joint trespass with another, and that that other having made compensation for the injury had been released from liability, then the case was rightly ruled in the court below, and the judgment non obstante must be sustained; for it is a settled rule that whenever satisfaction has been received from one of several joint tort feasors all are thereby discharged. The contention of the appellee here is that this rule, which is admitted, applies only as between established…
2Cited by29 opinions
- Thompson v. FoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Smith v. FennerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Mason v. C. Lewis Lavine, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- McLaughlin v. MonaghanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Albright v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.