Seaboard Construction Co. v. Curtis
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
1Opinion of the Court
Bok, P. J.,
Although defendant has filed a motion for a new trial, his attorney informs us that he does not desire a new trial and that in fact he has had paid to plaintiff the amount of the verdict, less the items of interest on plaintiff’s claim. Defendant’s counsel asks us to treat the motion as an application to mold the verdict by eliminating the items of interest which defendant contends were wrongfully included in the verdict.
We are of opinion that defendant’s application must be refused for the following reasons:
1. In equity and good conscience plaintiff is entitled to recover the said…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- West Republic Mining Co. v. Jones & LaughlinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Minard v. BeansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Emerson v. SchoonmakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- MacK Paving & Construction Co. v. American Pipe & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Niland v. GillSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.