From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baiz v. Atlantic Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 30, 1934
170 A. 268 (Pa. 1934)

Opinion

January 2, 1934.

January 30, 1934.

Appeals — Judgment entered on verdict — Evidence — Conclusiveness.

On an appeal from judgment entered on a verdict the appellate court is concluded by the finding of the jury where the record discloses evidence to support it.

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

Appeal, No. 57, Jan. T., 1934, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., May T., 1928, No. 858, in case of Johanna Baiz v. The Atlantic Refining Company. Judgment affirmed.

Trespass for death of plaintiff's husband. Before JONES, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed. Error assigned, inter alia, was refusal of judgment n. o. v., quoting record.

Thomas Byron Miller, with him Wm. A. Valentine, Jr., for appellant.

John H. Dando, Richard B. Sheridan and William A. Corcoran, for appellee, were not heard.


Argued January 2, 1934.


Defendant appeals from the refusal of its motion for judgment n. o. v. and new trial, after verdict for plaintiff, in an action of trespass arising from a collision between two trucks. All questions raised by appellant relate to matters of fact which were left to the jury under proper instructions and resolved in plaintiff's favor. As the record discloses ample testimony to support the finding of the jury, we are concluded thereby: Remppis v. Ettelt, 310 Pa. 479; Rossheim v. Bornot, 310 Pa. 154; Adams v. Gardiner, 306 Pa. 576; Sheasley v. Haney, 311 Pa. 144.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Baiz v. Atlantic Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 30, 1934
170 A. 268 (Pa. 1934)
Case details for

Baiz v. Atlantic Refining Co.

Case Details

Full title:Baiz v. Atlantic Refining Company, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 30, 1934

Citations

170 A. 268 (Pa. 1934)
170 A. 268

Citing Cases

Brauner v. Corgan

He argues, however, that the agreement is not binding upon him, (1) because it was not delivered by him; (2)…