History
  • No items yet
midpage
Fee v. Columbus Borough
168 Pa. 382
Pa.
1895
Check Treatment
Per Curiam,

Considered in the light of all the testimony properly before the jury, there is no substantial error in either of the excerpts from the learned judge’s charge, recited in the first, second, seventh and eighth specifications; nor do we think there is any error in either of his answers to defendant’s requests for charge specified in the remaining four assignments. Questions of fact, necessarily for the exclusive consideration of the jury, were presented by the testimony and properly submitted to them, with instructions which appear to be substantially accurate and adequate. We find nothing in either of the assignments of error that requires special comment.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Fee v. Columbus Borough
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: May 20, 1895
Citation: 168 Pa. 382
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 203
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.