Appeals, Nos. 91 and 92, March T., 1964, from orders of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1950, No. 799, and Oct. T., 1955, No. 1885, in cases of C. S. Helmig v. Rockwell Manufacturing Company; and Same v. Rockwell Manufacturing Company and Bethlehem Steel Company. Orders affirmed; reargument refused June 26, 1964.
Paul Ginsburg, for appellant.
David W. Craig, with him John P. McComb, Jr., and Moorhead & Knox, for appellee.
David McNeil Olds, with him Reed, Smith Shaw & McClay, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO
The law is intended to be, and is in fact, a highway for litigants to travel until the destination of justice is reached. It is not a carousel on which litigants are to ride in never-ending circular journeying. The issues involved in this case have been litigated, adjudicated and definitively decided. The end of the highway has been reached, and the appellant here should not attempt to board again a legal merry-go-round. A simple statement of the facts follows.
In 1949 C. S. Helmig, a steel broker, sued the Rockwell Manufacturing Company for breach of contract. He contended that he had entered into a contract with the defendant company whereby it was to pay him commissions for securing ingots and rolling time for the conversion of the ingots into steel sheets and that he did fulfill his obligations under the contract by securing such arrangements with the Bethlehem Steel Company in behalf of the defendant, but that the defendant Rockwell Manufacturing Co. later cancelled its contract with him and then dealt directly with Bethlehem Steel Company.
Rockwell defended the assumpsit action on the ground that Bethlehem had refused to proceed with any arrangements made by Helmig because of Bethlehem's policy not to enter into conversion agreements in which middlemen were involved. At the ensuing trial the jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $177,811.20, the commission agreed upon ( $35 a ton for the finished product), but the trial court granted defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v., whereupon the plaintiff appealed to this court, which affirmed the judgment of n.o.v. (380 Pa. 305).
The plaintiff then presented to this Court a petition for reargument alleging after-discovered evidence,
consisting of evidence given before the Federal Trade Commission to the effect that Bethlehem did in fact enter into contracts wherein middlemen were involved and that, therefore, the defense offered by Rockwell at the assumpsit trial was false and a ...