Hecht v. Mileston & Phila. R. T. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Hecht v. Mileston & Phila. R. T. Co.

100 Pa. Super. 298, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 252

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 9, 1930

DocketAppeal 98

StatusPublished

This text of 100 Pa. Super. 298 (Hecht v. Mileston & Phila. R. T. Co.) 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

Hecht v. Mileston & Phila. R. T. Co., 100 Pa. Super. 298, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 252 (Pa. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

The verdict determines that the negligence of appellant’s motorman contributed to the damage to plaintiff’s house. The two questions involved, stated by appellant for review, may be answered with little discussion or statement of the case. They are:

“1. Where the plaintiff’s only witness to an accident gives conflicting versions of the happening of the accident concerning the negligence of the defendant, is it not error to refuse judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto?

“2. Where the plaintiff claims a sum certain in his statement of claim, and his witness gives conflicting testimony naming various sums as to the amount of the damage, is it not error to enter judgment for the amount claimed?”

1. We find no serious or unusual inconsistency in Jackson’s testimony; the jury was not confined to his *300 evidence, but was entitled to, and probably did, consider all tbat was offered by both sides; the familiar rule tbat all tbe evidence and proper inferences from it favorable to plaintiff must be taken as true, and all unfavorable to Mm rejected (Hunter v. Pope, 289 Pa. 560) is applicable and conclusive against appellant.

2. Tbe judgment was entered on tbe verdict; tbat it happened to be “tbe amount claimed” is no reason for disturbing it, if there is supporting testimony. Tbe record shows such testimony.

Plaintiff testified that be paid $550 (tbe amount claimed) to have the damage repaired; and, though objection to tbe question was made after it was answered, it would have been error to sustain the objection, if made in time. Moreover, tbe man who did tbe work testified tbat be was paid tbat sum by plaintiff ; there was no evidence tbat the amount paid was unreasonable; it was tbe duty of tbe jury to find the amount allowable; no complaint is made of tbe manner in which it was submitted to tbe jury.

Tbe opinion of Glass, J., filed pursuant to rule 58, completely answers all of appellant’s contentions.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

The verdict determines that the negligence of appellant’s motorman contributed to the damage to plaintiff’s house. The two questions involved, stated by appellant for review, may be answered with little discussion or statement of the case. They are:

“1. Where the plaintiff’s only witness to an accident gives conflicting versions of the happening of the accident concerning the negligence of the defendant, is it not error to refuse judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto?

“2. Where the plaintiff claims a sum certain in his statement of claim, and his witness gives conflicting testimony naming various sums as to the amount of the damage, is it not error to enter judgment for the amount claimed?”

1. We find no serious or unusual inconsistency in Jackson’s testimony; the jury was not confined to his *300 evidence, but was entitled to, and probably did, consider all tbat was offered by both sides; the familiar rule tbat all tbe evidence and proper inferences from it favorable to plaintiff must be taken as true, and all unfavorable to Mm rejected (Hunter v. Pope, 289 Pa. 560) is applicable and conclusive against appellant.

2. Tbe judgment was entered on tbe verdict; tbat it happened to be “tbe amount claimed” is no reason for disturbing it, if there is supporting testimony. Tbe record shows such testimony.

Plaintiff testified that be paid $550 (tbe amount claimed) to have the damage repaired; and, though objection to tbe question was made after it was answered, it would have been error to sustain the objection, if made in time. Moreover, tbe man who did tbe work testified tbat be was paid tbat sum by plaintiff ; there was no evidence tbat the amount paid was unreasonable; it was tbe duty of tbe jury to find the amount allowable; no complaint is made of tbe manner in which it was submitted to tbe jury.

Tbe opinion of Glass, J., filed pursuant to rule 58, completely answers all of appellant’s contentions.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Pa. Super. 298, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hecht-v-mileston-phila-r-t-co-pasuperct-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack