Philliber v. Edelblute

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 7, 1898

Philliber v. Edelblute, 188 Pa. 468 (Pa. 1898)

41 A. 643; 1898 Pa. LEXIS 631

Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mitchell

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This was an action brought to recover the value of services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant. There was no real *474dispute about the fact or the character of the services. The controversy was over the amount that was due. It was a pure question of fact and necessarily was submitted to the jury. The charge was fair, impartial and correct in every legal sense.' Several of the assignments relate to offers of testimony. They were all correctly disposed of by the court. The fifth assignment is to the whole charge, and cannot be sustained in any point of view, and the sixth requests a binding instruction against the plaintiff’s right of recovery, which of course cannot be sustained. The assignments are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: John A. Philliber v. Nathan G. Edelblute
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Master and servant — Services—Evidence. In an action by an employee against his employer to recover for services rendered, the Supreme Court will not reverse a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, where it appears that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff what he could afford, and there was no real, dispute about the facts or the character of the services, and there is evidence, although contradicted, that the business was profitable, and that defendant could afford to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff, and the evidence was correctly submitted to the jury-.