
    Lucy Shaffer et al., Plffs. in Err., v. Cambria Iron Company.
    A plaintiff who has obtained a verdict in an action of trespass on the case for negligence cannot complain of the instructions of the court which do not affect the amount of damages, but' consist merely in submitting the question of the defendant’s negligence to the jury, instead of determining it as matter of law.
    Note. — The judgment for damages in this case was affirmed in Cambria Iron Co. v. Shaffer, post, 105.
    (Argued February 1, 1887.
    Decided February 14, 1887.)
    January Term, 1887, No. 217, E. D., before Mercur, Ch. J., Gordon, Paxson, Stereett, Green, and Clark, JJ. Error to the Common Pleas of Eayette County to review a judgment on a verdict for the plaintiffs in an action of trespass on the case for negligence.
    Affirmed.
    Writs of error to review this judgment were taken by both plaintiffs and defendant below. The facts in the case, and the proceedings hy which the judgment was affirmed on the defendant’s writ, are reported in Cambria Iron Co. v. Shaffer, post, 105.
    The plaintiffs assigned as error the portions of the charge inclosed in parentheses.
    
      Edward Campbell, for plaintiffs in error.
    Where a duty is defined a failure to perform it is negligence, and may be so declared as matter of law by the court. Pittsburgh, O. & E. L. Pass. E. Co. v. Kane, 4 Sad. Eep. 188; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Werner, 89 Pa. 59; Sebum v. Pennsylvania E. Co. 107 Pa. 8, 52 Am. Eep. 468.
    
      B. H. Lindsey and B. P. Kennedy for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam:

Inasmuch as the plaintiffs obtained a verdict, there is no-error in this record which gives them a right to complain of the answer to their point. The charge is correct.

Judgment affirmed.  