Langenfelder v. Jones

• Decision Date: 10 October 1940
• Docket Number: 31.
• Parties: LANGENFELDER et al. v. JONES.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

15 A.2d 422

178 Md. 421

LANGENFELDER et al. v. JONES.

No. 31.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

October 10, 1940

Appeal from Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; Ridgely P. Melvin, Judge.

On motion to modify mandate.

Motion denied.

For former opinion, see 13 A.2d 623.

R. Tilghman Brice, III, of Annapolis, and Robert E. Coughlan, Jr., of Baltimore, for appellants.

W. Hamilton Whiteford, of Baltimore (Marvin I. Anderson, of Annapolis, on the brief), for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In the opinion filed in this case, the reason for the remand was omitted.

Although the court held there was no legally sufficient evidence for the jury to find for the claimant, the case is remanded for a new trial because the testimony indicated that there was a probability that had the hypothetical question been framed properly the answer of the doctor to it might have supplied the testimony necessary to carry the issues to the jury. It was this consideration that moved the court, in the exercise of its discretion, to remand the case for a new trial in order to afford the claimant an opportunity to offer material testimony at his command which might tend to prove his right to compensation.

See Code (1939) Art. 5, sec. 24(1).

Motion for modification of mandate denied.