Kaiser v. Nordhem Service Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Kaiser v. Nordhem Service Co.

83 Pa. Super. 332, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 135

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 8, 1924

DocketAppeal, 134

StatusPublished

This text of 83 Pa. Super. 332 (Kaiser v. Nordhem Service 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

Kaiser v. Nordhem Service Co., 83 Pa. Super. 332, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 135 (Pa. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff owned a two and a half story frame building at the intersection of two streets in Pittsburgh. The first floor, with a show window in front, was occupied by a small store. Without plaintiff’s consent, defendant painted a large advertising sign, described as “about 15 feet in height and 12 feet in width,” on the side of the building. Plaintiff sued for damages resulting from that trespass, contending that in the circumstances, it became necessary to paint the whole house, properly to remedy the damage resulting from the sign painting. There was evidence that the cost of painting the house would be $308. The jury rendered a' verdict of $200, which, (if the whole cost were $308) judging by a photograph of the house in the record, would seem to represent the cost of painting only the side of the house on which the sign was painted; we cannot say the verdict was excessive. We have examined the assignments of error in the light of defendant’s argument and the record, and are not convinced that reversible error has been shown: Devlin v. Snellenburg, 132 Pa. 186.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff owned a two and a half story frame building at the intersection of two streets in Pittsburgh. The first floor, with a show window in front, was occupied by a small store. Without plaintiff’s consent, defendant painted a large advertising sign, described as “about 15 feet in height and 12 feet in width,” on the side of the building. Plaintiff sued for damages resulting from that trespass, contending that in the circumstances, it became necessary to paint the whole house, properly to remedy the damage resulting from the sign painting. There was evidence that the cost of painting the house would be $308. The jury rendered a' verdict of $200, which, (if the whole cost were $308) judging by a photograph of the house in the record, would seem to represent the cost of painting only the side of the house on which the sign was painted; we cannot say the verdict was excessive. We have examined the assignments of error in the light of defendant’s argument and the record, and are not convinced that reversible error has been shown: Devlin v. Snellenburg, 132 Pa. 186.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 Pa. Super. 332, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaiser-v-nordhem-service-co-pasuperct-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack