Nirdlinger v. Seidel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Nirdlinger v. Seidel

140 A.2d 589, 392 Pa. 309, 1958 Pa. LEXIS 456

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 21, 1958

DocketAppeal, No. 49

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.2d 589 (Nirdlinger v. Seidel) 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

Nirdlinger v. Seidel, 140 A.2d 589, 392 Pa. 309, 1958 Pa. LEXIS 456 (Pa. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Plaintiff, an architect, instituted an action in as-sumpsit in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to recover commissions which the defendant allegedly agreed to pay him for his services. The case was submitted to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $30,000. Defendant filed a motion for judgment n.o.v., which was refused by the court en banc, and for a new trial, which was granted for the principal reason that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Prom the order of the court en bane awarding a new trial the appellant has taken this appeal.

A review of the record convinces us that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial and consequently its order must be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno dissents.

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

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Plaintiff, an architect, instituted an action in as-sumpsit in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to recover commissions which the defendant allegedly agreed to pay him for his services. The case was submitted to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $30,000. Defendant filed a motion for judgment n.o.v., which was refused by the court en banc, and for a new trial, which was granted for the principal reason that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Prom the order of the court en bane awarding a new trial the appellant has taken this appeal.

A review of the record convinces us that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial and consequently its order must be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.2d 589, 392 Pa. 309, 1958 Pa. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nirdlinger-v-seidel-pa-1958.