Wolf v. Philadelphia Traction Co.

Citations

• 181 Pa. 399
• 37 A. 555
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 559

Syllabus

<p>Practice, 8. 0. — Appeals—Penalty for taking appeal for delay.</p> <p>On a rule for penalties under the act of May 25, 1874, for taking an appeal for delay, it appeared that the verdict was unusually large. The defendant’s liability was not denied and the defense was confined to the question of the amount of damages sustained. A new trial was refused by the court below. About nine months after the appeal was taken the defendant offered to compromise for a sum less than the amount of the verdict, but the offer was refused. No assignments of error were filed and no paper-books were furnished to the appellee. Prom the counter affidavit and the statement of counsel it appeared that the attorney who represented the defendant at the trial advised an appeal on account of the excessive verdict, and this was approved by the defendant’s principal attorney. When, however, the latter came to prepare the case for argument on the appeal he considered that the appeal would be useless, as assignments of error based on the action of the lower courts in sustaining excessive verdicts had never been acted upon by the Supreme Court; the ease of Smith v. Times Publishing Co., 178 Pa. 481 not yet having been decided. Counsel for the appellant stated that the appeal had been taken in good faith. Held, that the case was not one for the imposition of the penalties provided by the act.</p>