WEINFELD v. FUNK, 342 Pa. 160 (1941)

20 A.2d 206

Weinfeld v. Funk, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.April 24, 1941.
May 12, 1941.

Appeals — Review — Order granting new trial.

An order granting a new trial will not be reviewed where the lower court states that justice demands such action.

Argued April 24, 1941.

Before SCHAFFER, C. J., MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and PARKER, JJ.

Appeal, No. 135, Jan. T., 1941, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1937, No. 713, in case of Louis Weinfeld v. M. Estelle Funk. Order affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before OLIVER, P. J.

Verdict for defendant and plaintiff’s motion for new trial granted. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned was order granting new trial.

Page 161

Harold Scott Baile, with him Richard Benson, Philip L. Leidy
and Pepper, Bodine, Stokes Schoch, for appellant.

James F. Masterson, for appellee, was not heard.

PER CURIAM, May 12, 1941:

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. In its opinion, the court states: “After a careful review of the entire case, we reached the firm conclusion that justice demanded that plaintiff’s motion for a new trial be sustained.” We have uniformly held that under such circumstances we will not review the action of the court below: Reese v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 336 Pa. 299, 9 A.2d 394; Kerr v. Hofer, 341 Pa. 47, 17 A.2d 886.

The order of the court below is affirmed.