Petroleum Fuel Engineering Co. v. Hemphill

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Petroleum Fuel Engineering Co. v. Hemphill

94 Pa. Super. 362, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 200

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 14, 1927

DocketAppeal 148

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 94 Pa. Super. 362 (Petroleum Fuel Engineering Co. v. Hemphill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Petroleum Fuel Engineering Co. v. Hemphill, 94 Pa. Super. 362, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 200 (Pa. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This was an action brought by a manufacturer of oil burners against a heating contractor to recover the contract price of a burner which was installed in the house of one of defendant’s customers. Following a verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff filed motions (1) for a new trial and (2) for judgment non obstante veredicto, both being based on the contention that there was no evidence that the defendant had recinded the contract, or, in any event, had done so within a reasonable time after the burner was in *364 stalled. The court being’ of the opinion that there was no evidence of such rescission a;nd that under the provisions of the Sales Act of 1915; P. L. 453, the verdict for the defendant could not be sustained, made absolute the rule for judgment non obstante veredicto, and, in consequence, as a matter of form, discharged the rule for a new trial.

In doing so the court apparently overlooked the fact that the plaintiff had not filed a point for binding instructions.; and that in the absence of such point in writing judgment non obstante veredicto could not be entered for the plaintiff. Leonard Co. v. Scranton Coco Cola Bottling Co., 90 Pa. Superior Ct. 360. The judgment, accordingly, will have to be reversed.

It is apparent, however, that the Court did not pass upon the merits of the rule for a new trial, but discharged it as a matter of form following the entry of judgment non obstante veredicto. As this judgment is now reversed, we feel that opportunity should be given the court below to consider the rule for new trial upon its merits. This may be done by reinstating the rule, which we now do, pursuant to the broad authority conferred by the Act of April 22, 1905, P. L. 286.

Judgment reversed and rule for a new trial reinstated.

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

Per Curiam,

This was an action brought by a manufacturer of oil burners against a heating contractor to recover the contract price of a burner which was installed in the house of one of defendant’s customers. Following a verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff filed motions (1) for a new trial and (2) for judgment non obstante veredicto, both being based on the contention that there was no evidence that the defendant had recinded the contract, or, in any event, had done so within a reasonable time after the burner was in *364 stalled. The court being’ of the opinion that there was no evidence of such rescission a;nd that under the provisions of the Sales Act of 1915; P. L. 453, the verdict for the defendant could not be sustained, made absolute the rule for judgment non obstante veredicto, and, in consequence, as a matter of form, discharged the rule for a new trial.

In doing so the court apparently overlooked the fact that the plaintiff had not filed a point for binding instructions.; and that in the absence of such point in writing judgment non obstante veredicto could not be entered for the plaintiff. Leonard Co. v. Scranton Coco Cola Bottling Co., 90 Pa. Superior Ct. 360. The judgment, accordingly, will have to be reversed.

It is apparent, however, that the Court did not pass upon the merits of the rule for a new trial, but discharged it as a matter of form following the entry of judgment non obstante veredicto. As this judgment is now reversed, we feel that opportunity should be given the court below to consider the rule for new trial upon its merits. This may be done by reinstating the rule, which we now do, pursuant to the broad authority conferred by the Act of April 22, 1905, P. L. 286.

Judgment reversed and rule for a new trial reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 Pa. Super. 362, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petroleum-fuel-engineering-co-v-hemphill-pasuperct-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack