Case ID: pa_289/html/0169-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Grossman v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R. R., Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Grant of new trial — Reasons.
    1. Tbe Supreme Court will not review an order granting a new trial unless the court below states that it would have refused to grant a new trial but for reasons distinctly set forth, which, in its opinion, control the whole case.
    2. In such ease, if the opinion of the court below sets forth a number of reasons in support of its order, but does not indicate, either expressly or otherwise, that these were the exclusive reasons for granting a new trial, the appellate court will not interfere.
    Argued March 16, 1927.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Kephart aud Sadler, JJ.
    Appeal, No. 27, March T., 1927, by defendant, from order of C. P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1923, No. 19, granting new trial after verdict for defendant, in case of Simon Grossman v. Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Co.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass for personal injuries. Before Cohen, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Yerdict for defendant. New trial granted. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was, inter alia, order granting new trial, quoting record.
    
      John J. Heard, with him Arthur B. Van Buskirk, T. C. Whiteman and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McOlay, for appellant.
    
      Rody P. & Meredith R. Marshall and O. J. Tannehill, for appellee, were not heard.
    April 11, 1927:
   Per Curiam,

This is an appeal , by defendant from an order granting plaintiff a new trial, after verdict rendered in favor of defendant. The opinion of the court below sets forth a number of reasons in support of its order, but does not indicate, either expressly or otherwise, that these were the ■ exclusive reasons for granting the new trial; under such circumstances, we will not interfere. In Feite v. Coll, 285 Pa. 151, 152, 153, we recently said: “The opinion of the court below does not conclusively show that the reasons there stated and discussed were the only ones which controlled the exercise of its discretion in ordering a new trial......Under such circumstances, we do not interfere with the judgment of the trial court.” We also stated: “This court will not review an order granting a new trial unless the court below states it would have refused to grant the new trial but for reasons distinctly set forth, which, in its opinion, control the whole case.” We. now repeat these statements in order that our position on such appeals may be made entirely clear.

The order is affirmed.