170 A. 269 | Pa. | 1934
Argued January 9, 1934. Plaintiff, a passenger on a car of defendant transit company, was injured in a collision between the car and a truck. Originally a joint action was instituted against the transit company and Swift Company, as defendants. Later it was discovered that Armour Company, not Swift Company, was the owner of the truck, whereupon, on petition of the transit company, Armour Company was by scire facias brought upon the record as additional defendant. A nonsuit as to Swift Company was entered by agreement of all parties, and the action proceeded against the transit company and Armour Co. to determine whether defendants were "solely or jointly liable to plaintiff." A verdict was rendered by the jury against the transit company for $3,191.50, and no finding made as to Armour Company. Subsequently a rule was taken by Armour Company to have the court "remould the verdict so as to include, so far as Armour Company is concerned, a verdict for defendant"; this appeal is from the refusal of the lower court to do so.
An examination of the record shows the jury was plainly and correctly charged as to liability of the parties, and that, if they found either or both defendants liable, a verdict could be rendered against either or both. The verdict returned indicates the jury understood the court's instructions and intended the transit company should be held responsible for the accident and that Armour Company was not liable. The lower court could properly have amended the verdict and avoided this controversy, but the refusal to do so was within its *29
sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal. In Cohn v. Scheuer,
The appeal is quashed at appellant's costs.