Case Name: Joseph Hoover & Sons Company v. Corbin & Bodine, Inc., Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1923-11-19
Citations: 82 Pa. Super. 167
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 76
Parties: Joseph Hoover & Sons Company v. Corbin & Bodine, Inc., Appellant.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 167–172

Head Matter:
Joseph Hoover & Sons Company v. Corbin & Bodine, Inc., Appellant.
Argued October 19, 1923.
Contracts — Assumpsit—Private carriers — Damages—Negligence —Evidence—Motion for new trial after judgment on verdict.
In assumpsit to recover for loss of goods by private-carrier, the only point contested at the trial was whether defendant had been negligent; throughout the trial, the value of the goods was, without objection, assumed to be that laid in the statement of claim. After verdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed, defendant moved for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v. The motion for the new trial was withdrawn and that for judgment n. o. v. was refused. Judgment was then entered on the verdict. Subsequently defendant filed a petition for reargument on a motion for a new trial on the ground that no evidence of the amount of damage was produced at the trial, but neither stating what the damage was, nor otherwise stating any defense to the action.
Meld: after judgment on a verdict responsive to the issue made in pleadings, as well as to the theory on which both parties presented the ease, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing the motion.
Appeal, No. 76, Oct. T., 1923, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1921, No. 8110, on verdict for plaintiff, in the case of Joseph Hoover & Sons Company v. Corbin & Bodine, Inc.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Affirmed.
Assumpsit on a contract for the carriage of goods by private carrier. Before Bartlett, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
November 19, 1923:
Verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $981. Subsequently, the court below overruled a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and on the same day defendant voluntarily withdrew its motion for new trial. Two weeks later judgment was entered on the verdict. Subsequently, the court below dismissed a petition for a rule upon the plaintiff to show cause why a reargument should not be allowed and a new trial granted. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the refusal of the court below to permit a reargument and to grant a new trial.
Layton M. Schoch, and with him Bernard R. Cohen, for appellant.
There is neither averment or record admission nor proof of damages: New York and Pennsylvania Co. v. N. Y. Central Ry. Co., 267 Pa. 64; Parry v. First National Bank of Lansford, 270 Pa. 556; Corry v. Penna. R. R. Co., 194 Pa. 516; Buehler v. U. S. Fashion Plate Co., 269 Pa. 428; Farbo v. Caskey, 272 Pa. 573; Beck v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 233 Pa. 344.
Josiah H. Morris, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Linn, J.,
Plaintiff sought compensation for goods lost in transit by defendant carrier, and has judgment on his verdict. Appellant contends it was entitled either (1) to judgment n. o. v. or (2) to a new trial.
(1) The undertaking to carry was admitted. The defense was that the property was stolen. The jury found the loss occurred in circumstances constituting negligence, which, the record shows, was the single point contested at the trial; it was the duty of the jury to find the fact. Accordingly, neither binding instructions for appellant, nor subsequent judgment n. o. v. would have been proper.
(2) On the day judgment n. o. v. was refused, appellant withdrew its motion for a new trial. Two weeks later, judgment was entered on the verdict. Still later, at the same term, appellant filed what it called a petition ' for reargument, alleging the trial, the verdict and that motions for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v. had been dismissed; it averred that at the trial "no evidence or proof of damage was produced," and asked the court "to grant a reargument in this case upon a motion for a new trial......" As the motion for a new trial had been withdrawn, the petition, of course, was not accurate; and as the plaintiff already had a judgment regularly entered on the verdict responsive to the issues made by the pleadings, he had a complete adjudication in the court below of the matters in suit, so that there was nothing to be reargued. Even if we consider the proceeding as one to open the judgment, the petition would be insufficient because it alleged no defense to the action nor stated what the value of the goods was. There was no abuse of discretion in dismissing that petition.
Judgment affirmed.