Mantz v. Rufft

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Mantz v. Rufft

170 A.2d 101, 403 Pa. 436, 1961 Pa. LEXIS 483

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 2, 1961·No. Appeals, 2 and 3·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

170 A.2d 101 (Mantz v. Rufft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related