Stanislaff v. Glick

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Stanislaff v. Glick

56 A.2d 545, 358 Pa. 278, 1948 Pa. LEXIS 299

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 17, 1948

DocketAppeal, 192

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 A.2d 545 (Stanislaff v. Glick) 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

Stanislaff v. Glick, 56 A.2d 545, 358 Pa. 278, 1948 Pa. LEXIS 299 (Pa. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The trial was prematurely stopped by the presiding judge who appears to have thought that plaintiff had put in all his evidence of liability * when in fact that was not so.. This misunderstanding appears from the colloquy reported in the printed record on pages 112a to 116a. To correct this error, we must grant a new trial. See Mazer v. Kann, 343 Pa. 376, 22 A. 2d 707.

There were three defendants. .When the misunderstanding became apparent, counsel for one of them proposed that “We might at side bar see if he has some offer that is new or supplemental to what we have already heard. THE COURT: I do not see any necessity for any side bar conference in this. I will entertain any motion you have to make.” Thereupon counsel for each of the defendants moved that a nonsuit be entered as to *280 bis client. These motions were granted. Buie 2231(h) (1) Pa. B. C. P. prohibits the entry of a compulsory nonsuit on the motion of a defendant before plaintiff has completed presenting his evidence against all the defendants.

We do not discuss the evidence received because, until all the evidence is in, such a discussion can be of no use.

Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.

*

See Rules 223 and 224 governing civil procedure.

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

Per Curiam,

The trial was prematurely stopped by the presiding judge who appears to have thought that plaintiff had put in all his evidence of liability * when in fact that was not so.. This misunderstanding appears from the colloquy reported in the printed record on pages 112a to 116a. To correct this error, we must grant a new trial. See Mazer v. Kann, 343 Pa. 376, 22 A. 2d 707.

There were three defendants. .When the misunderstanding became apparent, counsel for one of them proposed that “We might at side bar see if he has some offer that is new or supplemental to what we have already heard. THE COURT: I do not see any necessity for any side bar conference in this. I will entertain any motion you have to make.” Thereupon counsel for each of the defendants moved that a nonsuit be entered as to *280 bis client. These motions were granted. Buie 2231(h) (1) Pa. B. C. P. prohibits the entry of a compulsory nonsuit on the motion of a defendant before plaintiff has completed presenting his evidence against all the defendants.

We do not discuss the evidence received because, until all the evidence is in, such a discussion can be of no use.

Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.

*

See Rules 223 and 224 governing civil procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.2d 545, 358 Pa. 278, 1948 Pa. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanislaff-v-glick-pa-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack