Hutton v. Morrison
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 232, April T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. Term, 1897, No. 536, on verdict for plaintiff. Per curiam. Assumpsit. Before Shaeer, J. It appears from the record that plaintiff recovered a verdict for $1,000 and a motion was made for a new trial. On February 2, the court made an order that “ if plaintiff will remit all of the verdict except $700 within fifteen days, new trial refused, and otherwise new trial will be granted.”
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 232, April T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. Term, 1897, No. 536, on verdict for plaintiff. Per curiam. Assumpsit. Before Shaeer, J. It appears from the record that plaintiff recovered a verdict for $1,000 and a motion was made for a new trial. On February 2, the court made an order that “ if plaintiff will remit all of the verdict except $700 within fifteen days, new trial refused, and otherwise new trial will be granted.” On March 8, 1899, the court on motion permitted plaintiff to file his stipulations nunc pro tunc as of February 11,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
In view of the form of the order disposing of the rule for a new trial, we are of opinion that the court had discretionary power to permit the release to be filed nunc pro tunc. The presumption is that there was a meritorious cause for the exercise of the power, and no abuse of discretion is apparent. It is *366not shown that the appellant was harmed by the few days’ delay in the filing of the release, and it is not easy to see how he could have been. The case while not similar in all of its facts, comes fairly within the principles enunciated in Lance v. Bonnell, 105 Pa. 46. If the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lance v. BonnellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Jamson v. PoletesSuperior Court of Rhode Island · 1931