Case Name: Conley et ux. v. Simmons, Appellant; Conley et al. v. Simmons, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1933-06-30
Citations: 312 Pa. 249
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 264-7
Parties: Conley et ux. v. Simmons, Appellant. Conley et al. v. Simmons, Appellant.
Judges: Before Frazer, C. J., Simpson, Kephart, Schaerer, Maxey, Drew and Linn, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 312
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
Conley et ux. v. Simmons, Appellant. Conley et al. v. Simmons, Appellant.
Argued May 25, 1933.
Before Frazer, C. J., Simpson, Kephart, Schaerer, Maxey, Drew and Linn, JJ.
F. D. Gallup and 8. Y. Rossiter, with them Robert B. Appel and E. G. Potter, for appellant.
T. B. Wilson, of Wilson & Fitsgibbon, with him E. K. Kane, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
June 30, 1933:
Defendant appeals from the refusal of judgment n. o. v. and a new trial in two actions, both resulting from the sáme 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 prov ing the accident could not have occurred as claimed by plaintiff.
The judgments are affirmed.