Smith v. Eyre

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Smith v. Eyre

28 A. 1005, 161 Pa. 115, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 645

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 9, 1894

DocketAppeal, No. 227

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 A. 1005 (Smith v. Eyre) 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

Smith v. Eyre, 28 A. 1005, 161 Pa. 115, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 645 (Pa. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It appears that after protracted litigation between the defendant in this case, as tenant for life of certain real estate, and the owners thereof in remainder, a compromise was effected whereby the former received twelve thousand dollars, which, as plaintiff alleged, included one thousand dollars agreed upon as compensation for his services as her attorney in said litigation. Defendant not only refused to pay plaintiff said sum which he alleged she had received to his use as aforesaid, but she denied that he had been her attorney in said litigation and compromise thereof. Hence this suit to recover said one thousand dollars and interest. The burden was, of course, on plaintiff to prove the allegations on which his claim is grounded, and testimony was accordingly introduced for that purpose, and thus questions of fact were presented and properly submitted to the jury. Their verdict for plaintiff necessarily im[118]*118plies a finding of said facts in his favor. So far, therefore, as the controlling facts are concerned, they have been definitely settled by the verdict; and, unless there is some error in the ruling or instructions of the learned trial judge complained of, the judgment entered on the verdict should not be disturbed.

There is no error in the ruling complained of in the first specification. For obvious reasons the objection to the question propounded to the witness Anna Heller was rightly sustained. The witness herself stated that plaintiff was not present when the declaration, referred to in the question propounded, was made.

We also think there is no error in either of the learned judge’s answers to points recited in the second, third, fourth and fifth specifications; nor in his refusal to direct a verdict for defendant as requested in her fifth point, recited in the last specification. Neither of the questions thus presented requires elaboration. It would serve no useful purpose. The case appears to have been carefully and ably tried; and we find nothing in the record of which defendant has any just reason to complain.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

It appears that after protracted litigation between the defendant in this case, as tenant for life of certain real estate, and the owners thereof in remainder, a compromise was effected whereby the former received twelve thousand dollars, which, as plaintiff alleged, included one thousand dollars agreed upon as compensation for his services as her attorney in said litigation. Defendant not only refused to pay plaintiff said sum which he alleged she had received to his use as aforesaid, but she denied that he had been her attorney in said litigation and compromise thereof. Hence this suit to recover said one thousand dollars and interest. The burden was, of course, on plaintiff to prove the allegations on which his claim is grounded, and testimony was accordingly introduced for that purpose, and thus questions of fact were presented and properly submitted to the jury. Their verdict for plaintiff necessarily im[118]*118plies a finding of said facts in his favor. So far, therefore, as the controlling facts are concerned, they have been definitely settled by the verdict; and, unless there is some error in the ruling or instructions of the learned trial judge complained of, the judgment entered on the verdict should not be disturbed.

There is no error in the ruling complained of in the first specification. For obvious reasons the objection to the question propounded to the witness Anna Heller was rightly sustained. The witness herself stated that plaintiff was not present when the declaration, referred to in the question propounded, was made.

We also think there is no error in either of the learned judge’s answers to points recited in the second, third, fourth and fifth specifications; nor in his refusal to direct a verdict for defendant as requested in her fifth point, recited in the last specification. Neither of the questions thus presented requires elaboration. It would serve no useful purpose. The case appears to have been carefully and ably tried; and we find nothing in the record of which defendant has any just reason to complain.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A. 1005, 161 Pa. 115, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-eyre-pa-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack