Sheridan v. Gray's Ferry Abattoir Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 201, Jan. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Go., Sept. T,, 1901, No. 3,298, on verdict for defendant in case of William Sheridan v. Gray’s Ferry Abattoir Company. ' ■ Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Willson, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 201, Jan. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Go., Sept. T,, 1901, No. 3,298, on verdict for defendant in case of William Sheridan v. Gray’s Ferry Abattoir Company. ' ■ Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Willson, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Errors assigned were as follows : 1. Rejection of evidence of plaintiff that the covering of the pit deceived him as to any danger. 2. Sustaining objection…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
All of the specifications of error are'in violation of the rules of court. The "first five relate to the rejection of testimony and the offers and the ruling of the court thereon are not set out: Rule 31. These must be disregarded. The sixth specification should have set out the instruction complained of: Rule 30. Since this specification is to a binding instruction to find for the defendant we will consider it notwithstanding the error in form.
The plaintiff was injured by getting his foot into a pit containing hot oil and water which dripped from the machinery of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wolfe v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Springfield Gas Co. v. HermanOhio Court of Appeals · 1933
- Leh v. DuttSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917