Stern v. Johnston
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 28, April T., 1908, by defendant, from order of C. P. Crawford Co., May T., 1906, No. 74, making absolute rule for new trial in case of Samuel Stern v. W. G. Johnston. Assumpsit on an agreement in writing to assume the debt of another. Before Thomas, P. J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Verdict and judgment for defendant. The court subsequently granted a new trial. Error assigned was in granting a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
The only error assigned by the appellant is, that the court erred in making absolute the rule for a new trial. As early as Burd v. Lessee of Dansdale, 2 Binney, 80, and Burke v. Lessee of Young, 2 S. & R. 383, it was held that there was no error in the refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial of which the supreme court should take cognizance. It is the duty of the trial judge to see that the trial is conducted in a legal manner, and the exercise of his authority is discretionary. Unless this discretion is abused, the action of the court is not the subject of an…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Smith v. Times Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Wagner v. Hazle TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Walsh v. Wilkes-BarreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Commonwealth v. ValverdiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Commonwealth v. StriepekeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Commonwealth v. Grotefend HaunSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Hade v. Cumberland Valley RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910