From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conley et Ux. v. Simmons

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 30, 1933
167 A. 675 (Pa. 1933)

Opinion

May 25, 1933.

June 30, 1933.

A case as to incontrovertible physical facts.

Before FRAZER, C. J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.

Appeals, Nos. 264-7, Jan. T., 1933, by defendant, from judgments of C. P. McKean Co., June T., 1931, Nos. 90, 92, on verdicts for plaintiffs, in cases of Patrick H. Conley and Etta May Conley, his wife, v. A. C. Simmons, and Francis R. Conley et al. v. A. C. Simmons. Judgments affirmed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was refusal of judgment n. o. v., quoting record.

F. D. Gallup and S. Y. Rossiter, with them Robert B. Appel and E. G. Potter, for appellant.

T. B. Wilson, of Wilson Fitzgibbon, with him E. K. Kane, for appellee.


Argued May 25, 1933.


Defendant appeals from the refusal of judgment n. o. v. and a new trial in two actions, both resulting from the same automobile collision and tried as one in the court below.

There is nothing in the record to justify a reversal, particularly since, on a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Assignments of error raise only questions involving facts which were properly submitted to the jury, and we find ample testimony warranting the verdicts. The evidence does not, as argued by defendant, show incontrovertible physical facts proving the accident could not have occurred as claimed by plaintiff.

The judgments are affirmed.


Summaries of

Conley et Ux. v. Simmons

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 30, 1933
167 A. 675 (Pa. 1933)
Case details for

Conley et Ux. v. Simmons

Case Details

Full title:Conley et ux. v. Simmons, Appellant. Conley et al. v. Simmons, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 30, 1933

Citations

167 A. 675 (Pa. 1933)
167 A. 675

Citing Cases

Hostetler v. Kniseley

Under the Act of April 22, 1905, P. L. 286, the court cannot enter judgment n. o. v. where the evidence is…