Appeal, No. 327, Jan. T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1960, No. 1379, in case of William J. Doyle, Jr. v. Ruth C. Goldman. Judgment affirmed.
J. J. Kilimnik, for appellant.
Gilbert O. Schulman, with him Schulman and Schulman, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE O'BRIEN
Appellant, Ruth C. Goldman, defendant in this ejectment action, purchased property in 1958 and gave appellee a mortgage in the amount of $6,500. In late 1959, Mrs. Goldman was in default under the terms of the mortgage, owing payments on principal and interest,
as well as delinquent taxes and overdue water and sewer charges.
In May, 1960, the property was sold at sheriff sale on foreclosure proceedings instituted by the mortgagee, William J. Doyle, who bought the premises.
The instant ejectment suit was instituted for the premises at 111 South 43rd Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and possession obtained in October, 1961. At trial in January, 1961, the court granted binding instructions in favor of appellee for possession and denied his claim for detention, binding instructions thereon being given in favor of appellant. Subsequently, the court dismissed appellant's motion for judgment n.o.v. and new trial. The court dismissed appellee's motion for judgment n.o.v. as to damages but granted him a new trial limited to the issue of damages for detention of the premises. The trial on this issue resulted in a verdict of $1,272 in favor of appellee.
The appellant argues a number of errors committed by the court in the trial which was limited to the issue of possession of the premises. We will consider these allegations even though appellee has secured possession.
Neither appellant nor her counsel attended the trial on the issue of damages for detention of the premises, although given notice of trial by service on counsel on May 8, 1961. The trial was held May 15, 1961 and the same day an appeal was taken to this Court by defendant. We will consider this matter also, despite the fact that the motion for new trial was filed May 15, 1961 ...