Arons v. Smit

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 17, 1896

Arons v. Smit, 173 Pa. 630 (Pa. 1896)

34 A. 234; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 754

Dean, Green, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This case appears to have been tried on its merits without strict regard to the questions of fact presented in the affidavit of defense. Testimony was accordingly introduced that war*633ranted the learned trial judge in charging as complained of in the first specification. After such testimony has been received, without objection, and the case submitted to the jury on the evidence thus before them, it is too late to complain of the introduction of testimony that was not strictly relevant under the issue presented by plaintiff’s statement and the defendant’s answer thereto. We find no error in the record, of which the defendant has any just reason to complain.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Bernard E. Arons v. Moses J. Smit
Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Evidence — Pleadings—Statement—Master and servant. In an action to recover commissions on sales, plaintiff averred in his statement that he had been employed by defendant for a year at a certain salary per week and certain commissions on sales, that he had continued in defendant’s employ until a certain date mentioned which was about ten days before the termination of the year. The affidavit of defense admitted the hiring for a year, and alleged that defendant had quit work within the year; and further alleged that the commissions were to be based on the net profits for the entire year. At the trial he testified that he had served for the whole year. Bo objection was made to this testimony, nor did the defendant plead surprise, and the court charged that if plaintiff left before the termination of the year he was not entitled to commissions. A verdict was rendered for plaintiff on which judgment was entered. Eeld, that after such testimony had been received .without objection, and the case submitted to the jury on the evidence thus before them, it was too late to complain of the introduction of testimony that was not strictly relevant under the issue presented by plaintiff’s statement and defendant’s answer.