Case Name: Lydia H. Mitchell v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1925-02-27
Citations: 85 Pa. Super. 434
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 129
Parties: Lydia H. Mitchell v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 434–436

Head Matter:
Lydia H. Mitchell v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, Appellant.
Argued October 24, 1924.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Lewis C. Cassidy, for appellant,
cited: Kline v. Tractor Co., 4 Erie 51; Randall v. Phila. R. T. Co., 62 Pa. Superior Ct. 531; Cornell v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 54 Pa. Superior Ct. 230. .
J. Verner Harold, and with him, Graham, & Garaguso, for appellee,
cited: Byrne v. Ry. Co., 19 Pa. Superior Ct. 531; Waechter v. Traction Co., 198 Pa. 129; Clayton v. Traction Co., 3 Pa. Superior Ct. 107; Huth v. Cent. R. of N. J., 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 517; Fisher v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 262; Ingraham v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., Ib. 132.
February 27, 1925:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The defendant appeals from a verdict recovered against it for $600, asserting that the verdict was against the evidence and against the law. Its motion for a new trial was dismissed, and judgment was entered on the verdict.
We are not favored with an opinion by the trial judge, but after a careful examination of all the evidence and the charge to the jury, we are satisfied that the court rightly refused the defendant's point for binding instructions, and that the disputed facts were fairly submitted to the only tribunal provided by law to dispose of them.
The judgment is affirmed.