Meckes v. Pocono Mountain Water Supply Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 36, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Monroe Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Frank P. Meckes v. Pocono Mountain Water Supply Company. Appeal from award of viewers. At the trial neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 36, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Monroe Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Frank P. Meckes v. Pocono Mountain Water Supply Company. Appeal from award of viewers. At the trial neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared. The court charged in part as follows: [We find upon this trial list that it (defendant) has an attorney who has entered his name just like any other attorney would do in any particular case, a gentleman and lawyer living at Scranton. He is not here. You have learned from the evidence that this case has been on…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The case was tried by the court below in the absence of the defendant and its counsel, but it was regularly on the trial list, and the requirements of the rales of court had been complied witli even if the defendant had not notice in fact of the date of trial, though it appears probable that it had. The plaintiff therefore was within his rights in demanding trial and the court in proceeding. It was not necessary for the court in its charge to refer to defendant’s absence, but it was not error to do so as a matter of explanation for the satisfaction of the jury.
Th…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance v. Radcliffe On Delaware, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Meek v. AllenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Salus v. FogelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Silberman v. RatnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Dublin Sportswear v. CharlettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.