Liberman v. Shapiro

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 361
• 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 117

Syllabus

<p>Practice, C. P. — Jurors—Jurors sitting in another case — Move for continuance — Challenges.</p> <p>Where, in an action of assumpsit to recover the price of certain goods sold and delivered, it appeared that four of the jurors had sat in a previous case ■wherein the plaintiff had recovered a verdict against a stranger to this record, and that after the jury had been called, defendants’ counsel moved that the case be continued for the reason “that the panel from which will be selected the jury is the same which tried the case of Liberman Brothers v. Isaac Gottlieb, a case involving the same question of fact in which case the jury gave a verdict in favor of - the plaintiffs,” it was not error for the trial judge to refuse the motion, particularly when the two actions did not involve the same questions of fact.</p> <p>A petition to continue the ease under such circumstances was not the correct procedure. The defendant had the right to challenge peremptorily the four jurors called into the box who had sat in the previous case. If, in selecting others in their stead, it appeared also that they, or any of them, had sat in the previous case, then the question could have been properly raised by the challenge of the juror for cause. Had the court erroneously refused to allow such challenge there would have been a proper case for review by an appellate court.</p>