GROSSMAN v. BESSEMER LAKE ERIE R. R., 289 Pa. 169 (1927)

137 A. 178

Grossman v. Bessemer Lake Erie R. R., Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.March 16, 1927.
April 11, 1927.

Appeals — Grant of new trial — Reasons.

1. The Supreme Court will not review an order granting a new trial unless the court below states that it would have refused to grant a new trial but for reasons distinctly set forth, which, in its opinion, control the whole case.

2. In such case, if the opinion of the court below sets forth a number of reasons in support of its order, but does not indicate,

Page 170

either expressly or otherwise, that these were the exclusive reasons for granting a new trial, the appellate court will not interfere.

Argued March 16, 1927.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, KEPHART and SADLER, JJ.

Appeal, No. 27, March T., 1927, by defendant, from order of C. P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1923, No. 19, granting new trial after verdict for defendant, in case of Simon Grossman v. Bessemer Lake Erie Railroad Co. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before COHEN, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict for defendant. New trial granted. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned was, inter alia, order granting new trial, quoting record.

John J. Heard, with him Arthur B. Van Buskirk, T. C. Whiteman
and Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, for appellant.

Rody P. Meredith R. Marshall and C. J. Tannehill, for appellee, were not heard.

PER CURIAM, April 11, 1927:

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

Page 171

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.