Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

NECZYPOR v. JACOBS (04/13/60)

April 13, 1960

NECZYPOR
v.
JACOBS, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 23, Oct. T., 1960, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1956, No. 2561, in case of Stephen S. Neczypor v. Joseph Jacobs. Judgment affirmed; reargument refused April 29, 1960.

COUNSEL

Irving R. Shull, with him Alfred I. Ginsburg, and Bernard L. Lemisch, for appellant.

Miles Warner, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ.

Author: Ervin

[ 192 Pa. Super. Page 182]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.

Plaintiff, Stephen S. Neczypor, brought this suit in trespass to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. At the instance of Joseph Jacobs, a detective on the Philadelphia Police Force, who at the times hereinafter described was dressed in plain clothes, plaintiff was arrested and indicted on a charge of operating an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Plaintiff was acquitted of the criminal charge. The jury in the present action returned a verdict in his favor in the sum of $4,000.00. After denial of defendant's motions for judgment n.o.v. and for new trial, judgment was entered on the verdict. Defendant appealed.

This appeal is the second taken by the defendant from a judgment against him in this action. In the prior appeal, Neczypor v. Jacobs, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 25, 146 A.2d 83, we reversed for trial error and granted a new trial. In that opinion we suggested to the court below use of the trial procedure advised by the Supreme Court in Simpson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 354 Pa. 87, 96-99, 46 A.2d 674. Pursuant to that suggestion the court below submitted 11 interrogatories to the jury for special findings of fact.*fn1 The questions were

[ 192 Pa. Super. Page 183]

    answered adversely to the defendant. The court thereupon found that plaintiff's arrest had taken place without

[ 192 Pa. Super. Page 184]

    probable cause and entered judgment for the amount assessed by the jury.

The principal complaints of the appellant are: (1) that the interrogatories were inadequate as to form and content, and (2) that the court improperly delegated to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.