Pearson v. A. W. Funk Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Pearson v. A. W. Funk Co., Inc.

172 A. 674, 315 Pa. 402, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 632

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 24, 1934

DocketAppeal, 224

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 A. 674 (Pearson v. A. W. Funk Co., Inc.) 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

Pearson v. A. W. Funk Co., Inc., 172 A. 674, 315 Pa. 402, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 632 (Pa. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Defendant entered into a contract with the Pottstown Borough School District for erection of a junior high school building for the sum of $268,714. Plaintiff claimed he was employed by defendant as consulting engineer on the building at a compensation of 2% of the contract price. Defendant denied the employment. A *403 verdict was rendered for plaintiff. Subsequently the lower court refused a motion for judgment for defendant n. o. v., but granted a new trial, stating in its opinion: “Plaintiff’s right to recovery rests entirely on his own testimony. The trial judge was convinced that this testimony was false. A reading of the record confirms this opinion formed at the time of the trial. For this reason, we believe that in the interest of justice a new trial should be granted. This is the only reason for our so doing.”

The trial judge having seen the witnesses and heard them testify, and being of opinion the ends of justice would be served by granting a new trial, we cannot say the order was an abuse of discretion: Lebo v. Reading Transit Co., 264 Pa. 270. “Where a verdict rests largely upon a single witness whose testimony is strongly contradicted by that of other witnesses, and discredited by his own prior inconsistent statements, the proper remedy is a new trial”: Thomas v. P. R. R. Co., 275 Pa. 579, 583-4.

Appeal dismissed at cost of appellant.

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

Per Curiam,

Defendant entered into a contract with the Pottstown Borough School District for erection of a junior high school building for the sum of $268,714. Plaintiff claimed he was employed by defendant as consulting engineer on the building at a compensation of 2% of the contract price. Defendant denied the employment. A *403 verdict was rendered for plaintiff. Subsequently the lower court refused a motion for judgment for defendant n. o. v., but granted a new trial, stating in its opinion: “Plaintiff’s right to recovery rests entirely on his own testimony. The trial judge was convinced that this testimony was false. A reading of the record confirms this opinion formed at the time of the trial. For this reason, we believe that in the interest of justice a new trial should be granted. This is the only reason for our so doing.”

The trial judge having seen the witnesses and heard them testify, and being of opinion the ends of justice would be served by granting a new trial, we cannot say the order was an abuse of discretion: Lebo v. Reading Transit Co., 264 Pa. 270. “Where a verdict rests largely upon a single witness whose testimony is strongly contradicted by that of other witnesses, and discredited by his own prior inconsistent statements, the proper remedy is a new trial”: Thomas v. P. R. R. Co., 275 Pa. 579, 583-4.

Appeal dismissed at cost of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A. 674, 315 Pa. 402, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-a-w-funk-co-inc-pa-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack