Zugsmith v. Rosenblatt & Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 11, Oct. T., 1900, by defendants, in suit of Albert Zugsmith against H. M. Rosenblatt & Company, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1899, No. 882, on verdict for plaintiff. Per Curiam. Assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 11, Oct. T., 1900, by defendants, in suit of Albert Zugsmith against H. M. Rosenblatt & Company, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1899, No. 882, on verdict for plaintiff. Per Curiam. Assumpsit. Before Brégy, J. It appears from the record that plaintiff brought suit to recover the sum of $1,800 for breach of contract of employment. [The court admitted without objection of defendants, the following testimony on behalf of plaintiff in rebuttal : “ Q. Please state whether or not, at the times during their employment, you neglected your duties to visit brokers’…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
A clear and concise statement in untechnieal language by *298the trial judge, of the respective contentions of the parties, is of great aid to the jury, and often absolutely essential, even though it be not accompanied by a review and an analysis of the evidence adduced in support of them. This was all that was attempted in the portion of the charge quoted in the first assignment of error. The principal question in dispute was as to the plaintiff’s duties under the contract of employment for the year 1899. The learned judge was not rehearsing the evidence in detail but was simply…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reno v. ShallenbergerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Halahan v. CassidySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900