Legal Opinion

Howard v. Bell Telephone Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 13, 1932No. Appeal, 110PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Drew,

This appeal presents a novel and interesting question. The question is: Whether the Act of April 15, 1851, P. L. 669, gives a widow a right of action for damages for negligence causing the death of her husband, where, at the time of his death, his right of action for the same negligence was barred by the statute of limitations.

The plaintiff is the widow of Richard James Howard, who died February 27, 1926, as a result of injuries sustained September 28, 1905, through the alleged negligence of defendant. This suit was commenced on February 23, 1927. The defendant…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Michigan Central Railroad v. VreelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Engel v. DavenportSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Flynn v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  4. McCafferty v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  5. Birch v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis RailwaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Russell v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Kaczorowski v. KalkosinskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Raftery v. Wm. C. Vick Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  4. Ingenito v. AC & S, INC.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Moyer v. RubrightSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API