Case Name: Peterson v. Coles, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1923-07-12
Citations: 81 Pa. Super. 277
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 280
Parties: Peterson v. Coles, Appellant.
Judges: Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 81
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
Peterson v. Coles, Appellant.
Practice, O. P. — Judgment n. o. v. — Written request — Act of April ££, 1905, P. L. £86.
The right to move for judgment non obstante veredicto upon the whole record is given by the Act of April 22, 1905, P. L. 286, only to a party who has presented a written request for binding instruc tions, which has been refused or reserved; an oral request does not meet the requirements of the act.
Argued December 5, 1922.
Appeal, No. 280, Oct. T., 1922, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court of Pbila. Co., Sept. T., 1921, No. 319, on verdict for the plaintiff in the case of Prank D. Peterson v. Alexander Coles.
Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Knowles, J.
The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $96 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Cornelius Maggerty, Jr., for appellant.
C. Donald Swartz, for appellee.
July 12, 1923:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The only assignment of error in this appeal goes to the refusal of the court below to enter judgment in favor of the defendant non obstante veredicto. No question of law was by the court reserved, but the appellant seeks to found his right to have judgment entered in his favor upon the provisions of the Act of April 22, 1905, P. L. 286. The right to move for judgment non obstante veredicto upon the whole record is given by that statute only to a party who has presented a written request for binding instructions which has been refused or reserved; an oral request does not meet the requirements of the act: Waugaman v. Henry, 75 Pa. Superior Ct. 94. The record discloses that the appellant did not present such a request for instructions at the trial and the assignment of error must be overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.