DocketNumber: Appeal 298
Judges: Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, James
Filed Date: 10/13/1933
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
The opinion of the learned court below, filed pursuant to Rule 58, fully justifies its action in entering judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto. If, as may be possible, the plaintiff, and her daughter testifying on her behalf, exaggerated the darkness in the defendant’s store, she must accept the consequences necessarily resulting from that testimony. ■
The judgment is affirmed on the. opinion of the court below.
Dively v. Penn-Pittsburgh Corp. ( 1938 )
Slobodzian v. Beighley ( 1960 )
Vetter v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. ( 1935 )
Hardman v. Stanley Co. of America ( 1936 )
Cathcart v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. ( 1935 )
Fay v. 900 North 63d Street Corp. ( 1939 )