Smith v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
1Dissent
Gordon, Jr., J.,
dissenting. — I cannot concur in the decision of the court in this case. The effect of the discharge of the rule to amend the statement is so harsh, and so out of accord with the fundamental justice of the ease, that I do not believe it is supportable either in reason or in precedent. This perplexed plaintiff has been seeking an opportunity to be heard in the presentation of his case for upwards of ten years, and a technical rule of pleading is invoked by the defendant to deny him a hearing. Whatever plausible legal reasoning may be advanced for the application of such a rule…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Rosenzweig v. HellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- LaBar v. New York, Susquehanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Allen v. Tuscarora Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Hogarty v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Michelin Tire Co. v. Coleman & Bentel Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.