Durdella v. Rothman

49 A.2d 64, 159 Pa. Super. 508, 1946 Pa. Super. LEXIS 422
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 4, 1946
DocketAppeal, 88
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.2d 64 (Durdella v. Rothman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Durdella v. Rothman, 49 A.2d 64, 159 Pa. Super. 508, 1946 Pa. Super. LEXIS 422 (Pa. Ct. App. 1946).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We find no merit in the contention of appellant that the court abused its discretion and acted in an arbitrary manner in granting a new trial in this case. It appears that a new trial was granted, not on questions of law but in the exercise of a general discretion. Our appellate courts have uniformly held that under such circumstances the action of the lower court will not be reviewed. Com. v. Dolan et al., 155 Pa. Superior Ct. 453, 456, 38 A. 2d 497; Kerr et ux. v. Kofer et al., 341 Pa. 47, 17 A. 2d 886; Weinfeld v. Funk, 342 Pa. 160, 20 A. 2d 206.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Simpson v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
57 A.2d 571 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.2d 64, 159 Pa. Super. 508, 1946 Pa. Super. LEXIS 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durdella-v-rothman-pasuperct-1946.