Harrier v. Dale
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 293, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1907, No. 391, on verdict for defendant in case of Rex N. Harrier, by his next friend, James Harrier, and James Harrier v. David Dale. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before. A. O. Smith, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 293, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1907, No. 391, on verdict for defendant in case of Rex N. Harrier, by his next friend, James Harrier, and James Harrier v. David Dale. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before. A. O. Smith, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions for defendant on the ground that the evidence showed that there was no relation of master and servant between defendant and plaintiff. Verdict and judgment-for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
The questions in this case depend upon oral testimony and we think they were for the jury. The alleged lease or hiring by Smeal from Dale, the defendant, of the thresher and corn husker was not in writing. The authority of Smeal to operate and control both machines depends upon oral testimony, and the relation existing between Smeal and Dale was necessarily for the jury under the testimony in the case.
Did the relation of master and servant exist between the minor plaintiff and the defendant at the time the former was injured by the corn husker? The plaintiff…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kurtz v. TourisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913