Legal Opinion
Hamilton v. Central Railroad
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided January 6, 1910No. Appeal, No. 86PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1906, No. 952, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Margaret Hamilton v. Central Railroad of New Jersey. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for §4,000. Subsequently the court entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
February 14, 1910:
The facts of the case and the law applicable thereto are very fully and clearly stated in the opinion of the learned trial judge, and the judgment is affirmed for the reasons given by him.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cubitt v. New York Central RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Donahue v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Tozer v. Altoona & Logan Valley Electric Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Witiak v. Delaware & Hudson R. R.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
- Wysochansky v. Delaware & Hudson RailroadCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949