Court Opinion

ID: 9706248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:37:03.356729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:20.735271
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Benjamin R. Jones :
Although I am fully aware that this Court, on several occasions, has, on appeals from judgments entered in trespass actions, reduced the amount of such judgments1 and that such action may be practically sound, *601I have great doubt that this Court has the power to reduce the verdict in the case at bar.
In the case at bar, the court below directed either that a remittitur in the amount of the verdict be accepted by plaintiff or a new trial would be granted. Upon refusal to accept the remittitur, the court below granted a new trial and, on appeal from that order, the majority of the Court now vacates the order granting a new trial and reduces the amount of the verdict from $30,000 to $13,000. My research reveals no authority for such action by this Court and, on the contrary, I am of the opinion that such action is constitutionally inhibited. See: Smith v. Times Publishing Co., 178 Pa. 481, 36 Atl. 296; Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U.S. 22, 9 S. Ct. 696, 33 L. Ed. 110.

 Kite v. Jones, 389 Pa. 339, 350, 132 A. 2d 683; Jackson v. Yellow Cab Co., 360 Pa. 635, 63 A. 2d 54; Meholiff v. River Transit Co., 342 Pa. 394, 20 A. 2d 762; Brown v. Paxton, 332 Pa. 260, 2 A. 2d 729; Tauber v. Wilkinsburg, 309 Pa. 331, 163 Atl. 675; Milyak v. P. R. T., 300 Pa. 457, 150 Atl. 622 (obiter dicta).