History
  • No items yet
midpage
Shannon v. Cobbell
67 Pa. Super. 538
Pa. Super. Ct.
1917
Check Treatment

Opinion by

Orlady, P. J.,

On the trial of this case the parties did not confine their proofs and allegations to the pleadings on file, and the examination of the witnesses took a wide range to present the contention of the respective parties: The

disputed facts were fully and adequately submitted to the jury in a charge of which neither party has a right to complain. The opinion of the court, filed in refusing the defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, fairly answers the argument presented on this, appeal. The supplemental order discharging the defendant’s rule to have a certain portion of the verdict and judgment marked to his use, continues that phase of the case for the further consideration of the court after the affirmance of this judgment.

An examination of the record does not disclose such error as would warrant another trial, and the judgment is affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Shannon v. Cobbell
Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Jul 13, 1917
Citation: 67 Pa. Super. 538
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 197
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.
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.