Hill v. Egan
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 39, Nov. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1891, No. 70, making absolute rule for judgment for new trial nunc pro tunc. Rule for new trial. This was originally an action for damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution in which there was a verdict for the plaintiff for $100. A motion for a new trial was refused and judgment entered for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 39, Nov. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1891, No. 70, making absolute rule for judgment for new trial nunc pro tunc. Rule for new trial. This was originally an action for damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution in which there was a verdict for the plaintiff for $100. A motion for a new trial was refused and judgment entered for the plaintiff. Defendant took a certiorari to the Supreme Court and the appeal was quashed on the ground that defendant had no bill of exceptions, but suggestion was made that this was a case for an…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
On the trial of this cause in the court below, February 6, 1893, the plaintiff obtained a verdict. February 8, the defendant moved for a new trial. March 7, the motion was refused. March 14, judgment was entered on the verdict. March 19, the defendant took an appeal to the Supreme Court. March 5, 1894, the appeal was quashed, for the reason that the record showed nothing that could be reviewed.
But as the trial occurred before the announcement of the decisions in Rosenthal v. Elirlicher, 154 Pa. 396; Connell v. O’Neill, 154 Pa. 582, and Com. ex rel. v. Arnold, 161 Pa. 320,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- King v. BrooksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Lance v. BonnellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Catlin v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Commonwealth ex rel. Arrott Steam Power Mills Co. v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Connell v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Rome Sales & Service Station v. FinchSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Dormont Motors, Inc. for Use v. HoerrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Kappel v. MethSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Abeles v. PowellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Dean v. MunhallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.