Knoller v. Everett Realty Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 231, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1912, No. 1,353, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Aaron Knoller v. Everett Realty Company. Rule to show cause why case should not be reconsidered and judgment modified. See Knoller v. Everett Realty Company, 57 Pa. Superior Ct. 269.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
In his closing address to the jury, the plaintiff’s counsel stated, "Everybody has to sue this man,” and Holden v. Penna. R. R. Co., 169 Pa. 1; Wagner v. Hazle Township, 215 Pa. 219; Walsh v. Wilkes-Barre, 215 Pa. 226; Saxton v. Pittsburgh Rwys. Co., 219 Pa. 492; Fisher v. Penna. Co., 34 Pa. Superior Ct. 500, are relied on to require us to reverse the judgment.
The remark was an improper one. We do not have before us the whole argument of counsel, and cannot know what invited this improper statement. Evidently the court felt that it should be noticed and stated to the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Holden v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Saxton v. Pittsburg Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Wagner v. Hazle TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Commonwealth v. ShieldsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Walsh v. Wilkes-BarreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Matthews v. Tyrone Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Commonwealth v. BingleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Knoller v. Everett Realty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Mahony, Trustee v. BoenningSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939