Swartz v. Levitzky

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

Swartz v. Levitzky

47 Pa. D. & C. 650, 1944 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 297

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County·Decided January 19, 1944·No. no. 286·Published

Opinion

Eagen, J.,

Plaintiff seeks a new trial in this assumpsit action wherein the jury found a verdict in favor of defendant. Not only are the reasons assigned in support of the new trial without merit, but the motion was filed too late. The verdict was returned September 28, 1943. The rule to show cause why a new trial should not be allowed was granted on October 1, 1943, but the motion wa§ not filed in the prothonotary’s oifice until October 29, 1943. Rule 125 of this court requires that “Motions and reasons for new trial must be filed within four days after verdict”.

Now, therefore, January 19, 1944, the rule heretofore granted to show cause why a new trial should not be granted in the above-entitled action is discharged.

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

Eagen, J.,

Plaintiff seeks a new trial in this assumpsit action wherein the jury found a verdict in favor of defendant. Not only are the reasons assigned in support of the new trial without merit, but the motion was filed too late. The verdict was returned September 28, 1943. The rule to show cause why a new trial should not be allowed was granted on October 1, 1943, but the motion wa§ not filed in the prothonotary’s oifice until October 29, 1943. Rule 125 of this court requires that “Motions and reasons for new trial must be filed within four days after verdict”.

Now, therefore, January 19, 1944, the rule heretofore granted to show cause why a new trial should not be granted in the above-entitled action is discharged.

Swartz v. Levitzky, 47 Pa. D. & C. 650, 1944 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 297 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1944).

Pincite

47 Pa. D. & C. 650 (Swartz v. Levitzky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.