McIntosh v. Norwood

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

McIntosh v. Norwood

15 Pa. D. & C. 538, 1931 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 222

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedMarch 30, 1931

DocketNo. 10285

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Pa. D. & C. 538 (McIntosh v. Norwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McIntosh v. Norwood, 15 Pa. D. & C. 538, 1931 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 222 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Alessandroni, J.,

At the trial of this case the defendant did not appear, and the case was heard upon the testimony presented by the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant for $1800.

The defendant has taken a rule for a new trial, and in support of this rule it is urged that he had retained counsel, who entered his appearance of record in this case; that he was in court on other occasions when the ease was listed for trial; but that he received no notice and had no knowledge of the case being listed at the time when it was submitted to a jury.

He avers that he has retained new counsel; that he has a good defense to the action of plaintiff; and in the oral argument his counsel stated facts which might lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff is chargeable with contributory negligence. This being so, we are constrained to grant a new trial, so that injustice may not be done by reason of what appears to have been the neglect of counsel of record.

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

Alessandroni, J.,

At the trial of this case the defendant did not appear, and the case was heard upon the testimony presented by the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant for $1800.

The defendant has taken a rule for a new trial, and in support of this rule it is urged that he had retained counsel, who entered his appearance of record in this case; that he was in court on other occasions when the ease was listed for trial; but that he received no notice and had no knowledge of the case being listed at the time when it was submitted to a jury.

He avers that he has retained new counsel; that he has a good defense to the action of plaintiff; and in the oral argument his counsel stated facts which might lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff is chargeable with contributory negligence. This being so, we are constrained to grant a new trial, so that injustice may not be done by reason of what appears to have been the neglect of counsel of record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Pa. D. & C. 538, 1931 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintosh-v-norwood-pactcomplphilad-1931.