Rhodes v. General Credit Corp.

Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas

Rhodes v. General Credit Corp.

28 Pa. D. & C. 680, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 344

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County

DecidedFebruary 15, 1937

Docketno. 416

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Pa. D. & C. 680 (Rhodes v. General Credit Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rhodes v. General Credit Corp., 28 Pa. D. & C. 680, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 344 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Houck, J.,

— Husband and wife sued in one action, as required by the Act of May 8,1895, P. L. 54, to recover damages resulting from an alleged trespass committed by defendant’s agent. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Emerson Rhodes for $100, and said nothing respecting the wife’s claim. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial on the ground, inter alia, that the verdict failed to adjudicate the claim of Ethel Rhodes and hence is fatally defective.

On its face, the verdict does not specifically adjudicate the claim of Ethel Rhodes. Defendant concedes that a new trial must be granted her. Plaintiff, Emerson Rhodes, is satisfied with the verdict in his favor and it is a matter of indifference to him whether he be granted a new trial or not. In view of defendant’s concession, we shall grant a new trial to Ethel Rhodes; there is no reason for granting a new trial to Emerson Rhodes: Albertson et ux. v. Gordon, 27 Dist. R. 770.

And now, February 15, 1937, a new trial is granted plaintiff, Ethel Rhodes, and the prothonotary is directed to enter judgment sur verdict in favor of Emerson Rhodes upon payment of the jury fee.

From G. Harold Watkins, Frackville.

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

Houck, J.,

— Husband and wife sued in one action, as required by the Act of May 8,1895, P. L. 54, to recover damages resulting from an alleged trespass committed by defendant’s agent. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Emerson Rhodes for $100, and said nothing respecting the wife’s claim. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial on the ground, inter alia, that the verdict failed to adjudicate the claim of Ethel Rhodes and hence is fatally defective.

On its face, the verdict does not specifically adjudicate the claim of Ethel Rhodes. Defendant concedes that a new trial must be granted her. Plaintiff, Emerson Rhodes, is satisfied with the verdict in his favor and it is a matter of indifference to him whether he be granted a new trial or not. In view of defendant’s concession, we shall grant a new trial to Ethel Rhodes; there is no reason for granting a new trial to Emerson Rhodes: Albertson et ux. v. Gordon, 27 Dist. R. 770.

And now, February 15, 1937, a new trial is granted plaintiff, Ethel Rhodes, and the prothonotary is directed to enter judgment sur verdict in favor of Emerson Rhodes upon payment of the jury fee.

From G. Harold Watkins, Frackville.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Pa. D. & C. 680, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-general-credit-corp-pactcomplschuyl-1937.