Halahan v. Cassidy

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Halahan v. Cassidy

12 Pa. Super. 227, 1900 Pa. Super. LEXIS 225

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 17, 1900

DocketAppeal, No. 198

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 Pa. Super. 227 (Halahan v. Cassidy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Halahan v. Cassidy, 12 Pa. Super. 227, 1900 Pa. Super. LEXIS 225 (Pa. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee CtrKiAM,

As the appellant filed no assignments of error the appellee was entitled to have the appeal quashed or a judgment of non-suit entered. Even if the appellant had assigned for error the matter complained of in the oral argument and printed brief of his counsel, the only difference in the result would be, that the judgment would be affirmed. The cause was submitted to the jury in a charge to which he took no exception, and of which, even now, he does not complain. Concededly, the case was for the jury; the only complaint is that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial ought to be granted in order to prevent injustice.

“ Conceding that under the act of May 20, 1891, this court has the power of granting new trials, there must be reasonable-limitations to its exercise. When application for a new trial has been made to the court below and, upon a review of the whole case, that tribunal, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, concludes to let the verdict stand as the judgment of the court, nothing but a manifest abuse of this discretion will justify us in disturbing the conclusion: ” Reno v. Shallenberger, 8 Pa. Superior Ct. 436. The argument of counsel has failed to convince us that there is such cause for reversal in the present case.

The plaintiff’s motion is allowed and judgment of nonsuit is entered.

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

Pee CtrKiAM,

As the appellant filed no assignments of error the appellee was entitled to have the appeal quashed or a judgment of non-suit entered. Even if the appellant had assigned for error the matter complained of in the oral argument and printed brief of his counsel, the only difference in the result would be, that the judgment would be affirmed. The cause was submitted to the jury in a charge to which he took no exception, and of which, even now, he does not complain. Concededly, the case was for the jury; the only complaint is that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial ought to be granted in order to prevent injustice.

“ Conceding that under the act of May 20, 1891, this court has the power of granting new trials, there must be reasonable-limitations to its exercise. When application for a new trial has been made to the court below and, upon a review of the whole case, that tribunal, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, concludes to let the verdict stand as the judgment of the court, nothing but a manifest abuse of this discretion will justify us in disturbing the conclusion: ” Reno v. Shallenberger, 8 Pa. Superior Ct. 436. The argument of counsel has failed to convince us that there is such cause for reversal in the present case.

The plaintiff’s motion is allowed and judgment of nonsuit is entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Pa. Super. 227, 1900 Pa. Super. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halahan-v-cassidy-pasuperct-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack