KLEIN v. SILBERBERG, 419 Pa. 321 (1965)

214 A.2d 228

Klein v. Silberberg, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.October 8, 1965.
November 9, 1965.

Attorney and client — Action for legal services — Practice — Proof of services — Evidence — Sufficiency.

In this action of assumpsit in which an attorney sought to recover compensation for legal services to the defendant and in which the jury found a verdict in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $15,564, plus interest, and the court below entered judgment on the verdict; and defendant contended that (1) some of the services were not performed for her, (2) plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof with regard to his legal services to her, and (3) the verdict was excessive, it wa Held, that defendant’s contentions were without merit.

Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O’BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 198, March T., 1965, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T.,

Page 322

1963, No. 3087, in case of Richard I. Klein v. Ruth Silberberg et al. Judgment affirmed.

Assumpsit. Before WEIR, J.

Verdict entered for plaintiff and against defendant, defendant’s motions for new trial and judgment non obstante veredicto refused and judgment entered on the verdict. Defendant appealed.

Patrick M. O’Donnell, with him Parker, Evashwick Brieger, for appellant.

Robert Engel, with him Berkman, Ruslander, Lieber Engel, for appellee.

OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BELL, November 9, 1965:

Plaintiff, Richard I. Klein, commenced an action of assumpsit by writ of foreign attachment against defendant, Ruth Silberberg, and certain named garnishees, seeking to recover compensation for legal services he claimed to have rendered to Ruth Silberberg. Tower Development Investment Corporation, Morris Melman and Bess W. Melman, Akiba Zilberberg and Yenti Zilberberg, Paul M. Fierst, and Shopping Centers Corporation were named and served as garnishees.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $15,564 plus interest. The lower Court denied defendant’s motions for a new trial and for judgment n.o.v. Defendant appealed.

Appellant’s principal contentions were that (1) some of the services were performed for corporations and for the executor of the estate of her deceased husband, and (2) plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof with regard to his legal services to her, and (3) plaintiff’s services did not justify the amount awarded to him by the jury.

Page 323

We have reviewed the record and find no merit in any of defendant’s contentions.

Judgment affirmed.