Birdsong v. Polinsky
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 31, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1911, No. 514, refusing to continue case of Silas A. Birdsong et al., trading as Birdsong Brothers, v. Henry P. Polinsky. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Audenried, J. From the record it appeared that the case was tried in the absence of the defendant. The plaintiffs offered in evidence a copy of the book of original entries and closed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 31, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1911, No. 514, refusing to continue case of Silas A. Birdsong et al., trading as Birdsong Brothers, v. Henry P. Polinsky. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Audenried, J. From the record it appeared that the case was tried in the absence of the defendant. The plaintiffs offered in evidence a copy of the book of original entries and closed. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiffs for $274.88, upon which judgment was entered. Subsequently the defendant filed the following reasons in…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
It is not claimed that this cause was not at issue, or that it was not regularly on the trial list or that it was not regularly reached for trial, or that any legal reason for a continuance of the case or a postponement of the trial existed. What is claimed is that the counsel for the defendant after investigation concluded that owing to the number of cases remaining open on the trial list the case “would probably not be reached until late in the day.” Acting on that supposition 'he advised his client that he would notify him by telephone whether the case would be tried…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Epstein v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
3Cited by2 opinions
- Poulson v. GambleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Weinberger v. SuessSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915