DocketNumber: Appeal 298
Citation Numbers: 168 A. 777, 110 Pa. Super. 379, 1933 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69
Judges: Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, James
Filed Date: 10/13/1933
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
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. , 332 Pa. 65 ( 1938 )
Slobodzian v. Beighley , 401 Pa. 520 ( 1960 )
Vetter v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. , 322 Pa. 449 ( 1935 )
Polm v. Hession , 363 Pa. 494 ( 1949 )
Modony v. Megdal , 318 Pa. 273 ( 1935 )
Bartek v. Grossman , 356 Pa. 522 ( 1947 )
Fay v. 900 North 63d Street Corp. , 137 Pa. Super. 496 ( 1939 )
Brusseau v. Selmo , 286 Mich. 171 ( 1938 )
Polm v. Hession , 363 Pa. 494 ( 1950 )
Hixenbaugh Et Vir. v. McCrory Co. , 145 Pa. Super. 586 ( 1941 )
Hardman v. Stanley Co. of America , 125 Pa. Super. 41 ( 1936 )
Cathcart v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. , 120 Pa. Super. 531 ( 1935 )