Case Name: Drislane v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1912-04-08
Citations: 236 Pa. 37
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 343
Parties: Drislane v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 37–37

Head Matter:
Drislane v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant.
Appeals — Assignment of error — Refusal of new trial.
Where an appellant assigns as the only error the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial, he concedes that the case was for the jury, and with no assignment complaining of any ruling of the trial judge, or of his charge to the jury, the appellate court can do nothing but dismiss the appeal.
Argued March 11, 1912.
April 8, 1912:
Appeal, No. 343, Jan. T., 1911, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., May T., 1910, No. 217, on verdict for plaintiff in case of John Drislane v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company.
Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Panning, P. J.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,716.66. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was as follows: “The court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.”
R. W. Barrett, with him E. E. Boles, for appellant.
8. E. Smith, David E. Kaufman and Chas. M. Culver, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The only assignment of error on this appeal is that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial. This concedes that the case was for the jury, and, with no assignment complaining of any ruling of the trial judge, or of his charge to the jury, we can do nothing but dismiss the appeal.
Judgment affirmed.