Court Opinion

ID: 9644748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:03:45.56165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:06.158195
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
In logic and in principle this case is ruled by Jedwabny v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 390 Pa. 231, 135 A. 2d 252, to which I wrote a Dissenting Opinion. I am convinced J edwabny should be overruled and I believe the bar feels the same way. However, until J edwabny is overruled, the Opinion in the instant case cannot be sustained. It is illogical, unfair and unjust to require (1) a poor man (or any person) to employ two different attorneys in the same case, viz., in which he is plaintiff and has been joined as an additional defendant, and where two cases, in one of which he is plaintiff and in the other he is defendant, are consolidated for trial, — and (2) then refuse to allow an attorney representing him in one of those allegedly eonflieting capacities to argue his case to the jury-
*493Consequently, I dissent and would grant a new trial.
Mr. Justice Musmanno joins in this Dissenting Opinion.