Legal Opinion

Sork v. Label

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 12, 1938No. Appeal, 26PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

We agree with the appellant that a compulsory non-suit should not be entered before the plaintiff has closed his case; but we think the circumstances attending the trial of this case justified the court below in concluding that the plaintiff had no more evidence to present, after his motion to amend his statement the second time had been disallowed, and that, in fact, he had concluded his case, although he may not have formally announced that he had rested.

The action was in replevin for a dining car, or lunch wagon, and contents, or equipment, used for selling and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Blossom Products Corp. v. National Underwear Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Drumgoole v. LyleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  3. C. H. Hardy Auto Co. v. PoseySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  4. McCrary v. McCullySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  5. Pickering v. YatesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gensbigler v. ShawleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Royal Batting & Felting Co. v. KleinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Commonwealth to Use v. Breckenridge (Et Al.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  4. Southeast First Natl Bank v. Security Peoples Trust Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. Commonwealth ex rel. Amusement Centers, Inc. v. Dratt, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1966

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

Powered by the Exa API