McCloskey v. Petersen Motors, Inc.

80 Pa. Super. 132, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 33
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 11, 1922·No. Appeal, No. 157·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict. The only assignment of error is to the refusal, of the court to open the judgment, grant a new trial and [134] let defendant into a defense. In the several- petitions presented to the court below praying for a new trial there is no allegation that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover something, the only complaint is that the verdict was excessive. The evidence produced by the plaintiff was fully sufficient to sustain the verdict'. It was said by the Supreme Court, in Schenkel v. Traction Co., 194 Pa. 186: “The power of this court to grant a new trial under the Act of May 20, 1891, P. L. 101, is exceptional in character, and only to be exercised in very clear cases of wrong or injustice which the court below should have remedied.” There is nothing in this case to bring it within that rule.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

McCloskey v. Petersen Motors, Inc., 80 Pa. Super. 132, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 33 (Pa. Ct. App. 1922).

80 Pa. Super. 132 (McCloskey v. Petersen Motors, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Polish Realty Co. v. Bonczek
83 Pa. Super. 187 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Ingraham v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
82 Pa. Super. 132 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)