Case Name: Woods v. Pelican Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1915-10-11
Citations: 61 Pa. Super. 298
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 199
Parties: Woods v. Pelican Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Porter, Henderson and Trexler, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
Woods v. Pelican Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant.
October 11, 1915:
Courts — County court of Allegheny County — Appeals.
An order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County refusing to allow an appeal from a judgment of the county court of that county will not be reversed by the Superior Court, where it appears that the case was carefully tried, that the conflicting testimony was submitted in an adequate charge, that the verdict returned was sustained by the court in banc on hearing of a motion for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v., that no unusual proposition was involved, and that the verdict was warranted under the disputed facts special to the case.
Argued May 5, 1915.
Appeal, No. 199, April T., 1915, by defendant, from order of C. P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1915, No. 847, refusing appeal from the County Court in case of Rachel Woods v. The Pelican Mutual Life Insurance Company.
Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Porter, Henderson and Trexler, JJ.
Affirmed.
Petition' for appeal from judgment of County Court.
Error assigned was order refusing appeal.
P. H. McGuire, with him L. K. and 8. G. Porter, for appellant.
F. W. Stonecipher, of Stonecipher & Ralston, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
This is an appeal from the refusal of the Court of Common Pleas to allow an appeal from the judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the county court of Allegheny County. The case was carefully tried in the county court by able counsel; the conflicting testimony was submitted in an adequate charge to a jury, and the verdict returned was sustained by the court in banc, on hearing of a motion for a new trial and for judgment non -obstante veredicto. The petition for allowance of an appeal was twice carefully considered by the Court of Common Pleas, and the petition refused. No unusual proposition is involved, and the verdict was warranted under the disputed facts which were special to the case. We feel that another trial would reasonably result in a like verdict, and the order made by the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.