Case Name: Charles Eneu Johnson Co. v. Philadelphia, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1913-05-05
Citations: 240 Pa. 552
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 391
Parties: Charles Eneu Johnson Co. v. Philadelphia, Appellant.
Judges: Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 240
Pages: 552–553

Head Matter:
Charles Eneu Johnson Co. v. Philadelphia, Appellant.
Supreme Court — Appeal from judgment on a venire facias de novo.
Where in an action of trespass against a municipality a judgment for the plaintiff had been reversed on appeal and a new trial ordered because the case had not been tried on the proper theory, a reversal of a second judgment for plaintiff will be refused, where it appears that the second trial had been held on the .lines indicated in the former opinion of the Supreme Court.
Argued March 24, 1913.
Appeal, No. 391, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Dee. T., 1909, No. 328, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Charles Eneu Johnson Company, a corporation, v. City of Philadelphia.
Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for the burning of a building. Before Little, P. J., specially presiding.
The facts appear in Charles Eneu Johnson Co. v. Philadelphia, 236 Pa. 510.
Verdict for plaintiff for f27,342. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were various instructions and rulings of the court.
Paul Reilly, Assistant City Solicitor, with him Michael, J. Ryan, City Solicitor, Haines D. Albright and James.J. Breen, Assistant City Solicitors, for appellant.
Fred Taylor Pusey, with him Louis F. J. Hepburn, for appellee.
May 5, 1913;

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
When this case was here before (236 Pa. 510), the judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered because the case had not been .tried on the proper theory, as was pointed out by Mr. Justice Elkin. On the last trial — resulting in the judgment now before us — the case was tried on the lines indicated in our former opinion as the proper ones, and we find nothing in the sixty-seven assignments of error which would justify a reversal and another opportunity to the City of Philadelphia to escape a liability which a second jury has placed upon it.
Judgment affirmed.