Britton v. Sappie

Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas

Britton v. Sappie

23 Pa. D. & C. 306, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 220

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County

DecidedJuly 26, 1934

Docketno. 17

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Pa. D. & C. 306 (Britton v. Sappie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Britton v. Sappie, 23 Pa. D. & C. 306, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 220 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Elder W. Marshall, J.,

This is one of the rare cases where a party was justified in pleading-surprise because his opponent was allowed to amend during the course of the trial.

The defendants had no previous intimation that the woman plaintiff had or claimed to have the disorder described in her amendment. On such short notice they were unable to subpoena the physician she claimed had attended her for such ailment, but whom, for some unexplained reason, she did not produce as a witness. She admits she failed to inform either of defendants’ physicians that she was suffering from the physical disturbance in question.

Under the circumstances the case should have been continued to allow defendants to make the necessary investigation and to call such additional witnesses as they deemed proper. Since a continuance was refused, the only remedy now at hand is to grant a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Elder W. Marshall, J.,

This is one of the rare cases where a party was justified in pleading-surprise because his opponent was allowed to amend during the course of the trial.

The defendants had no previous intimation that the woman plaintiff had or claimed to have the disorder described in her amendment. On such short notice they were unable to subpoena the physician she claimed had attended her for such ailment, but whom, for some unexplained reason, she did not produce as a witness. She admits she failed to inform either of defendants’ physicians that she was suffering from the physical disturbance in question.

Under the circumstances the case should have been continued to allow defendants to make the necessary investigation and to call such additional witnesses as they deemed proper. Since a continuance was refused, the only remedy now at hand is to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Pa. D. & C. 306, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britton-v-sappie-pactcomplallegh-1934.