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.

DRYER v. YOEST (ET AL. (03/17/64)

March 17, 1964

DRYER
v.
YOEST (ET AL., APPELLANT).



Appeal, No. 286, April T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1956, No. 1401, in case of Elva Mae Dryer, a minor, by her guardian, John W. Dryer, v. Robert C. Yoest et al. Appeal quashed.

COUNSEL

Frederick N. Egler, with him Thomas J. Reinstadtler, Jr., and Reed & Egler, for appellant.

Richard S. Crone, with him Abe R. Cohen, and Crone and Cohen, for appellees.

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

Author: Watkins

[ 203 Pa. Super. Page 9]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County discharging a rule to show cause why a judgment in favor of Elva Mae Dryer and against John W. Dryer in the amount of Two Thousand ($2000) Dollars should not be satisfied.

This case began on November 7, 1955, when a complaint in trespass was filed on behalf of Elva Mae Dryer, a minor, by her guardian and father Johm W. Dryer, and by John W. Dryer and Laura Marie Dryer, his wife, in their own right, against Robert C. Yoest. Litigation began as a result of an automobile accident between the automobile owned and operated by John W. Dryer, in which his wife and daughter were riding, the automobile of Robert C. Yoest and the automobile of Thomas H. Kiefer. The court below granted a petition of the original defendant Yoest to sever the claim of John W. Dryer and join him together with Kiefer as additional defendants. In Yoest's complaint he alleged that John W. Dryer was solely liable to the plaintiffs or jointly liable with Kiefer for the accident.

The appellant raised no objection to these allegations and no preliminary objections were raised to the complaint of the original defendant. An appearance was entered on behalf of the appellant as an additional defendant.

The case was tried on May 5, 1959 and at the conclusion of the testimony the appellant did not present any motions for binding instructions; nor did he present any requests for charge concerning the question of his sole liability. At no time during the trial up to verdict did he raise any question concerning parental immunity. The jury returned a verdict in favor of

[ 203 Pa. Super. Page 10]

Elva Mae Dryer against her father alone in the sum of Two Thousand ($2000) Dollars; and a verdict in favor of Laura Marie Dryer against her husband alone in the amount of Five Thousand ($5000) Dollars and found in favor of the other defendants. No objection was made to the verdicts at the time they were returned by counsel representing the appellant.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial which was refused and judgment was directed to be entered upon payment of the verdict fee. On November 1, 1960, judgment was entered against the Dryers in favor of Yoest, the original defendant. Elva Mae Dryer paid the fee and judgment was entered in her favor against her father, in the amount of Two Thousand ($2000) ...


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.