Case Name: Kemner v. Steckel, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1925-02-27
Citations: 85 Pa. Super. 454
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 80
Parties: Kemner v. Steckel, Appellant.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 454–463

Head Matter:
Kemner v. Steckel, Appellant.
Argued December 1, 1924.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
February 27, 1925:
Arthur S. Arnold, and with him Walter M. Shaw, for appellant.
Aaron R. Swartz, Jr., and with him John M. Dettra and Samuel E. High, for appellee.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam,
This case was zealously tried in the court below, and on the part of the defendant it was urged that under all the evidence, the verdict should be for the defendant. Subsequently, a motion to enter judgment non obstante veredicto was overruled by the court. A new trial was refused, and judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff on the verdict.
The evidence was conflicting and susceptible of opposite conclusions, but all the testimony was fairly submitted by the trial judge, and on consideration, the motion for a new trial was again refused, in an opinion which convinces us that no substantial error was committed in any of the matters of which the defendant complains.
We agree in this conclusion, and the judgment is affirmed for the reasons given by the trial judge.