Case ID: pa_342/html/0160-01.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

Weinfeld v. Funk, Appellant.
    Argued April 24, 1941.
    Before Schaffer, C. J., Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson and Parker, JJ.
    
      
      Harold Bcott Baile, with.him Richard Benson, Philip L. Leidy and Pepper, Bodine, 8tohes & Schoch, for appellant.
    
      James F. Masterson, for appellee, was not heard.
    May 12, 1941:
   Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. In its opinion, the court states: “After a careful review of the entire case, we reached the firm conclusion that justice demanded that plaintiff’s motion for a new trial be sustained.” We have uniformly held that under such circumstances we will not review the action of the court below: Reese v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 336 Pa. 299, 9 A. 2d 394; Kerr v. Hofer, 341 Pa. 47, 17 A. 2d 886.

The order of the court below is affirmed.