Opinion
March 14, 1928.
April 9, 1928.
Appeals — Motion for judgment n. o. v. — New trial — No abuse of discretion — Case for jury.
On an appeal by defendant in a negligence case, from an order refusing judgment for defendant n. o. v. and for a new trial, the judgment will be affirmed, where the appellate court is convinced that the issues involved were for the jury, and there is no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
Appeal, No. 152, March T., 1927, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1925, No. 398, on verdict for plaintiffs, in case of Samuel Brand, by his father and next friend, David Brand, and David Brand, in his own right, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before EVANS, J.
Verdict and judgment for Samuel Brand for $4,000, and for David Brand for $2,000. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, inter alia, were refusal of judgment for defendant n. o. v., and refusal of new trial, quoting record.
Robert D. Dalzell, of Dalzell, Fisher Dalzell, for appellant.
Rody P. Marshall, with him Edwin B. Goldsmith, for appellee.
Argued March 14, 1928.
In this action of trespass for personal injuries to the minor plaintiff and losses resulting to his father, the jury found verdicts against defendant, upon which judgments were entered for both plaintiffs. Defendant has appealed and complains because the trial court refused to enter judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict; also because the court below refused to grant a new trial.
We have read the printed record and are not convinced of error. No useful purpose would be served by a statement of the facts or by a review of the evidence; it is sufficient to say the issues involved were for the jury, and no abuse of discretion appears in refusing a new trial.
The judgment is affirmed.