Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

KING v. READING TRANSPORTATION COMPANY. (06/04/62)

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 4, 1962

KING, APPELLANT,
v.
READING TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.

Appeal, No. 6, May T., 1962, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Jan. T., 1957, No. 303, in case of Kenneth King, a minor, by George King, Sr., his guardian, Harold Richmond, a minor, by Rosalie King, his guardian, and George King, Sr. v. Reading Transportation Company and George King, Sr. Appeal dismissed.

COUNSEL

Elmer E. Harter, for appellant.

James K. Thomas, with him Hull, Leiby & Metzger, for appellee.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.

Author: Bell

[ 407 Pa. Page 545]

OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BELL

In February, 1955, an accident occurred. At the trial to recover damages resulting from the accident, the jury returned five verdicts. One of the verdicts was in favor of Kenneth King in the amount of $50,000 against both defendants. The lower Court granted a new trial on the ground that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence and the verdict of $50,000 was excessive. On June 5, 1961, an appeal was taken to this Court. The case was orally argued on May 24, 1962. No brief has ever been filed by appellant, nor was any justifiable reason or excuse given for appellant's failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 64. Rule 64 requires appellant to file in the office of the Prothonotary of this Court thirty (30) copies of his brief and record at least one (1) month before the first day of the session at which the appeal was listed for argument - in

[ 407 Pa. Page 546]

    this case April 23, 1962 - and if he fails to comply with the above requirements the appeal may be dismissed.

In the orderly and prompt administration of the law, as well as in the interest of justice, this appeal must be dismissed. We have no reluctance in taking this action because from the oral argument there appears to be no merit in the appeal, and plaintiffs will still have an opportunity to present their case in Court at the new trial which the lower Court ordered.

Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissents.

Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

19620604

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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