Kellogg v. Mack Paving & Construction Co.

Citations

• 66 Pa. Super. 399
• 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 275

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Improper cross-examination — Attempt to inject defense — Assignments of error — Appeal.</p> <p>In an action by attorneys-at-law to recover compensation for professional services, a judgment on a verdict for plaintiffs will be sustained on appeal, where the assignments of error are based on the refusal of the trial judge to permit the defendants' to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff for the purpose of eliciting evidence to support the defense of payment, and it appears from the record that the defendant offered no evidence at all at the trial. In such a case the burden of showing harmful error rests clearly on the appellant.</p> <p>The order of proceedings in the trial court must of necessity be left largely to the discretion of the trial judge. If a party be told he may not offer certain evidence at one stage of the case, but will have ample opportunity to introduce it later, no substantial harm is apparently done to the party.</p>