Case Name: Ruemeli v. Wilson et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1918-06-03
Citations: 261 Pa. 452
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 89
Parties: Ruemeli v. Wilson et al., Appellants.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and Frazer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 261
Pages: 452–453

Head Matter:
Ruemeli v. Wilson et al., Appellants.
Practice, Supreme Court — Appeals—Verdict's—-JSxcessive verdict —Consideration iy Supreme Court.
Where on appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, the only assignment of error pressed by the appellant complains that the verdict was excessive, the judgment will be affirmed, as the question of the reasonableness of the verdict was for the court below .to determine under all the evidence, on motion for a new trial.
Argued April 2, 1918.
Appeal, No. 89, Jan. T., 1917, by Irving N. Wood, from Judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1916, No. 2414, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Babette Ruemeli v. Ellwood A. Wilson and Irving N. Wood.
Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and Frazer, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Barratt, P. J.
. Verdict for plaintiff for $5,000 and judgment thereon. Irving N. Wood appealed.
Error assigned inter alia was as follows:
“Third, the verdict is grossly excessive.”
Maurice W. Sloan, for appellant.
Warren G. Graham, for appellee, was not heard.
June 3, 1918:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Two of the three assignments of error are not pressed. The third complains of the excessiveness of the verdict. That was a question for the court below, under all the evidence, on the motion for a new trial, and we cannot, therefore, disturb the judgment for the only error pressed. It is, therefore, affirmed.