Dzaack v. Bell Telephone Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Dzaack v. Bell Telephone Co.

145 A. 916, 296 Pa. 385, 1929 Pa. LEXIS 527

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 21, 1929

DocketAppeal, 42

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 145 A. 916 (Dzaack v. Bell Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dzaack v. Bell Telephone Co., 145 A. 916, 296 Pa. 385, 1929 Pa. LEXIS 527 (Pa. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In this action to recover for personal injuries, an $8,640 verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff; the court below cut the award to $6,000; plaintiff filed of record an acceptance of the reduced verdict, but before judgment was entered thereon, and within the term, the court below directed a new trial, saying that the prior order, which it formally vacated, had been made “inadvertently before full consideration of the opinion of the trial judge was had by the other judges sitting in banc,” and “upon reconsideration, the court in banc [became] convinced that the verdict was so excessive that the case should be resubmitted to a jury”; further, that the court entertained an impression “the accident could not have happened as indicated by plaintiff’s witnesses”; and, finally, that it was “of the opinion that the ends of justice [would] be best served by resubmitting the case for a new trial rather than by reducing the verdict.” Under such circumstances this court will not interfere.

In Fertax Co. v. Spiegelman, 292 Pa. 139, 140, and again, in Garland v. Gordon, 295 Pa. 99, 100, we very recently said that, where a trial court states in its opinion that “the interests of right and justice require that the case shall be retried......, we do not interfere on appeal.” These authorities rule the present case.

The order is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

In this action to recover for personal injuries, an $8,640 verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff; the court below cut the award to $6,000; plaintiff filed of record an acceptance of the reduced verdict, but before judgment was entered thereon, and within the term, the court below directed a new trial, saying that the prior order, which it formally vacated, had been made “inadvertently before full consideration of the opinion of the trial judge was had by the other judges sitting in banc,” and “upon reconsideration, the court in banc [became] convinced that the verdict was so excessive that the case should be resubmitted to a jury”; further, that the court entertained an impression “the accident could not have happened as indicated by plaintiff’s witnesses”; and, finally, that it was “of the opinion that the ends of justice [would] be best served by resubmitting the case for a new trial rather than by reducing the verdict.” Under such circumstances this court will not interfere.

In Fertax Co. v. Spiegelman, 292 Pa. 139, 140, and again, in Garland v. Gordon, 295 Pa. 99, 100, we very recently said that, where a trial court states in its opinion that “the interests of right and justice require that the case shall be retried......, we do not interfere on appeal.” These authorities rule the present case.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A. 916, 296 Pa. 385, 1929 Pa. LEXIS 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dzaack-v-bell-telephone-co-pa-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack