Opinion
November 15, 1951.
January 16, 1952.
Appeals — Review — Charge to jury — Absence of exceptions.
Alleged errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury cannot be reviewed on appeal where the complaining party failed to make any objections to the charge and did not take any exceptions thereto, either specific or general.
Before DREW, C. J., STERN, STEARNE, BELL, LADNER and CHIDSEY, JJ.
Appeal, No. 184, March T., 1950, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County, 1950, No. 1064, in case of Margaret Gross v. Carl R. Clapper, et al. and Arthur Koeppe, Exr., Estate of Harvey Koeppe, deceased. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before LANSBERRY, P.J.
Verdict for defendants; plaintiff's motion for new trial denied and judgment entered upon verdict. Plaintiff appealed.
Archibald M. Matthews, for appellant.
Joseph N. Cascio, with him Fike Cascio, Paul E. C. Fike, Clarence L. Shaver and Shaver Heckman, for appellees.
On this appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict for defendants, plaintiff has contended that certain instructions contained in the charge of the learned trial judge were erroneous and that the lower court should not have refused her motion for a new trial. However, plaintiff failed to make any objections to the charge and did not take any exceptions thereto, either specific or general. We cannot therefore review any of the alleged errors raised by plaintiff and must sustain the judgment of the court below: Senita v. Marcy, 324 Pa. 199, 188 A. 153.
Judgment affirmed.