Whipple v. Lewis
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 284, Oct. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Bradford Co., Dec. T., 1915, No. 50, granting a new trial in case of C. P. Whipple v. C. J. Lewis. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Maxwell, P. J. At the trial the court directed a verdict for plaintiff. Subsequently it granted a new trial, on the ground that there was some evidence of fraud in the transaction by which the plaintiff secured the note in suit, and that he knew of the fraud.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 284, Oct. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Bradford Co., Dec. T., 1915, No. 50, granting a new trial in case of C. P. Whipple v. C. J. Lewis. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Maxwell, P. J. At the trial the court directed a verdict for plaintiff. Subsequently it granted a new trial, on the ground that there was some evidence of fraud in the transaction by which the plaintiff secured the note in suit, and that he knew of the fraud. The evidence is summarized in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order of the court granting a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The only complaint presented is that the court granted a new trial. While our authority to entertain the appeal is not doubted the action of the court in granting or refusing a new trial is so largely a matter of discretion in the court below that its exercise will not be reviewed except in a clear case of abuse of that discretion. Where it does not appear that there was a manifest abuse of judicial discretion the appeal can not be sustained: Mifflintown Bank v. Bank of New Kensington, 247 Pa. 40; Reno v. Shallenberger, 8 Pa. Superior Ct. 436. From an examination of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reno v. ShallenbergerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Bank of Mifflintown v. Bank of New KensingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
3Cited by1 opinion
- Whipple v. LewisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920