Brumbaugh v. Raystown Water Power Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 25, 1918

Brumbaugh v. Raystown Water Power Co., 260 Pa. 365 (Pa. 1918)

103 A. 656; 1918 Pa. LEXIS 521

Brown, Frazer, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The sole .complaint of the appellant is of the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial for alleged improper remarks of counsel for plaintiff in addressing the *366jury. No objection was made to them by counsel for defendant at the time they were uttered, and the learned trial judge instructed the jury to disregard them. It was too late for the defendant to complain of them for the first time after a verdict unsatisfactory to it had been rendered, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Brumbaugh v. Raystown Water Power Company
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Practice, O. P. — Address to jury — Alleged improper remarles — ■ Motion for a new trial — Judicial discretion. The refusal of the lower court to grant a new trial was not reversible error where complaint was made of alleged improper remarks of counsel for plaintiff in addressing the jury, but where no objection to such remarks was made by counsel for defendant at the time when they were uttered, and where the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard them.