Case Name: Haltzel, Appellant, v. Printz et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1920-04-12
Citations: 267 Pa. 156
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 146
Parties: Haltzel, Appellant, v. Printz et al.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 267
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
Haltzel, Appellant, v. Printz et al.
Appeals — Excessive verdict — New trial — Discretion of court.
Where a verdict for plaintiff for $9,472.05 in an action for deceit, is set aside as being against the weight of the evidence, and subsequently a verdict for plaintiff on a second trial for $24,504.65 is set aside and a new trial granted, the action of the trial court in setting aside the second verdict and granting a new trial, will not be reversed, where the appellate court, from an examination of the record is convinced that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court in making such order.
Argued March 1, 1920.
Appeal, No. 146, Jan. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Berks Co., Aug. T., 1916, No. 123, granting a new trial in case of Henry S. Haltzel v. Daniel F. Printz and Samuel H. Fulmer.
Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass for deceit. Before Wagner, J.
Verdict for plaintiff for $24,504.65. Rule for new trial. The court subsequently set aside the verdict and granted a new trial.
Error assigned, was order making absolute rule for new trial.
W. B. Bechtel, with him Rothermel & Mauger, for appellant.
Snyder, Zieber & Snyder, for appellees, were not heard.
April 12, 1920:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from an order of the court below awarding a new trial on the ground that a verdict was returned for the plaintiff against the weight of the evidence. The case was twice tried. The verdict for the plaintiff on the first trial, for $9,472.05, was set aside as being against the weight of the evidence. On the second' trial the verdict for the plaintiff was for $24,504.65, and we are of one mind, from an examination of the record, that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the court below in setting it aside and granting a new trial.
Appeal dismissed.