Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

Hody et ux., Appellants, v. Pittsburgh Railways Company.

Smith v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, 314 Pa. 541, followed.

Argued March 27, 1935.

PER CURIAM, April 22, 1935:

These two appeals are similar in practically all respects to Smith v. Pgh. Rys. Co., 314 Pa. 541, and are respectively affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in those appeals by Mr. Justice DREW and reported as above indicated.

Judgment affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HODY ET UX. v. PITTSBURGH RYS. CO
(Apr 22, 1935)