Case Name: Grossman v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R. R., Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1927-04-11
Citations: 289 Pa. 169
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 27
Parties: Grossman v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R. R., Appellant.
Judges: Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Kephart aud Sadler, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 289
Pages: 169–171

Head Matter:
Grossman v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R. R., Appellant.
Argued March 16, 1927.
Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Kephart aud Sadler, JJ.
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:

Opinion:
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.