Mantz v. Rufft

170 A.2d 101, 403 Pa. 436, 1961 Pa. LEXIS 483
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 2, 1961
DocketAppeals, 2 and 3
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 A.2d 101 (Mantz v. Rufft) 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
Mantz v. Rufft, 170 A.2d 101, 403 Pa. 436, 1961 Pa. LEXIS 483 (Pa. 1961).

Opinion

Opinion

pee Cueiam,

The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Nixon, of the court below.

The points presented by appellants have no merit. One was raised here that was not raised before the court below. It concerned the appeal of the husband plaintiff, the point of it being that he got no compensation for the damage to his car. The wife was driving it for her own purposes and was injured, but the jury found for the defendant, saying in a special finding that both drivers were negligent. Since the point about the rights of the husband was not raised on motion for a new trial below, we will not consider it here: Enfield v. Stout, 400 Pa. 6 (1960), 161 A. 2d 22.

Mr. Justice Mtjsmanno dissents.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Negri
198 A.2d 595 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 A.2d 101, 403 Pa. 436, 1961 Pa. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mantz-v-rufft-pa-1961.