Case ID: pa_279/html/0288-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kirk v. Showell, Fryer & Co., Inc., Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Evidence—Second trial — Refusal of judgment n. o. ¶.
    
    An appeal from a judgment for plaintiff on a verdict against defendant, and refusal of judgment for defendant n. o. v., in an accident case will not be reversed, where the record shows a former judgment reversed on appeal with a new venire and that the evidence at the second trial was at least equally as strong for plaintiff as at the former trial, which the appellate court held was for the jury.
    Argued January 10, 1924.
    Appeal, No. 113, Jan. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1920, No. 8425, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Charles W. Kirk v. Showell, Fryer & Co., Inc.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart and Sadler, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass for personal injuries. Before Shoemaker, P. J.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $4,000. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was, inter alia, refusal of judgment n. o. v., for defendant, quoting record.
    
      
      H. Rook Goshorn, with him Harry S. Ambler, Jr., for appellant.
    
      A. W. Horton, for appellee.
    February 4, 1924:
   Per Curiam,

When this case was before us in Kirk v. Showell, Fryer & Co., 276 Pa. 587, we held that the issues involved were for the jury.

A reading of the records shows the evidence at the last trial to be at least equally as strong for plaintiff as that at the former trial; which is all that need be said in disposing of the present appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.