Jones v. Quaker City Cab Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Jones v. Quaker City Cab Co.

84 Pa. Super. 80, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 219

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 17, 1924·No. Appeal, 106·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The only complaint is that the court below refused a new trial. At the oral argument in this court, counsel for appellant frankly stated that he was unable to show *83 any abuse of discretion, contending, however, that this conrt should examine the evidence de novo; the rule is otherwise; his concession leaves nothing for our consideration; if the only complaint is that the court refused a new trial, this court will not interfere unless abuse of discretion is shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The only complaint is that the court below refused a new trial. At the oral argument in this court, counsel for appellant frankly stated that he was unable to show *83 any abuse of discretion, contending, however, that this conrt should examine the evidence de novo; the rule is otherwise; his concession leaves nothing for our consideration; if the only complaint is that the court refused a new trial, this court will not interfere unless abuse of discretion is shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

Jones v. Quaker City Cab Co., 84 Pa. Super. 80, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 219 (Pa. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

84 Pa. Super. 80 (Jones v. Quaker City Cab Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related