Opinion
December 1, 1941.
January 5, 1942.
Appeals — New trial — Statements of trial court.
An order granting a new trial in an eminent domain proceeding to recover damages for the condemnation of part of plaintiffs' land was affirmed on appeal, where the court below stated its reasons for granting a new trial were that the damages awarded by the jury were grossly excessive and that one of the jurors was the wife of an expert witness called by plaintiffs.
Argued December 1, 1941.
Before SCHAFFER, C. J.; MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and PARKER, JJ.
Appeal, No. 238, Jan. T., 1941, from order of C. P. Monroe Co., May T., 1940, No. 5, in case of Russell L. Mervine et al. v. Commonwealth. Order affirmed.
Appeal by plaintiffs from award of viewers in eminent domain proceeding. Before SHULL, P. J.
Verdict for plaintiffs in sum of $4,750. New trial granted. Plaintiffs appealed.
James C. Scanlon, for appellants.
Fred W. Davis, with him George W. Keitel, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, and Claude T. Reno, Attorney General, for appellee.
In this eminent domain proceeding brought to recover damages as a result of the condemnation and appropriation of part of plaintiffs' land by the Commonwealth for road purposes, in which the board of view made an award to plaintiffs of $2,000, and where the jury found a verdict of $4,750, a new trial was granted. The court stated as its reason for doing so that the damages awarded by the jury were grossly in excess of the damage done to the property. As an additional reason, the statement is made that one of the jurors was the wife of an expert witness called by plaintiffs. In view of these statements of the court, we will not interfere with its discretion in granting the new trial: Dzaack v. Bell Telephone Co., 296 Pa. 385, 145 A. 916; Edwards v. Crawford, 328 Pa. 449, 196 A. 58; Bingler v. Hopper, 336 Pa. 58, 7 A.2d 351.
Order affirmed.