Lutz v. Webster Hall Hotel, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Lutz v. Webster Hall Hotel, Inc.

132 A.2d 410, 183 Pa. Super. 557, 1957 Pa. Super. LEXIS 391

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 11, 1957

DocketAppeals, 115, 116

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 A.2d 410 (Lutz v. Webster Hall Hotel, Inc.) 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

Lutz v. Webster Hall Hotel, Inc., 132 A.2d 410, 183 Pa. Super. 557, 1957 Pa. Super. LEXIS 391 (Pa. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

per Curiam,

Plaintiffs, who have appealed from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, acted as their own counsel at the trial in the court below. They raise a single question on these appeals, *558 to wit, whether they are entitled to a new trial “because the trial judge failed to instruct . . . [them] in the basic essentials of trial procedure, including the calling and examination of witnesses.” The question was admittedly not raised in the motion for new trial in the court below. See Sherwood v. Elgart, 383 Pa. 110, 115, 117 A. 2d 899. We find no compelling reason why the matter should be reviewed on appeal. Cf. General Building Contractors’ Association v. Local Union No. 542, 370 Pa. 73, 79, 87 A. 2d 250. The trial judge was not obliged to act as counsel for plaintiffs as they in effect contend. See Lombardi v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank of Los Angeles, 137 Cal. App. 2d 206, 289 P. 2d 823, 824. Nevertheless the trial judge took every precaution to protect their interests, and attempted to guide them at every stage of the proceedings.

Judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

Opinion

per Curiam,

Plaintiffs, who have appealed from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, acted as their own counsel at the trial in the court below. They raise a single question on these appeals, *558 to wit, whether they are entitled to a new trial “because the trial judge failed to instruct . . . [them] in the basic essentials of trial procedure, including the calling and examination of witnesses.” The question was admittedly not raised in the motion for new trial in the court below. See Sherwood v. Elgart, 383 Pa. 110, 115, 117 A. 2d 899. We find no compelling reason why the matter should be reviewed on appeal. Cf. General Building Contractors’ Association v. Local Union No. 542, 370 Pa. 73, 79, 87 A. 2d 250. The trial judge was not obliged to act as counsel for plaintiffs as they in effect contend. See Lombardi v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank of Los Angeles, 137 Cal. App. 2d 206, 289 P. 2d 823, 824. Nevertheless the trial judge took every precaution to protect their interests, and attempted to guide them at every stage of the proceedings.

Judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.2d 410, 183 Pa. Super. 557, 1957 Pa. Super. LEXIS 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lutz-v-webster-hall-hotel-inc-pasuperct-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack