Berger v. Pittsburgh Auto Equipment Co.

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bell:

I would reverse the Order of the Court below which opened a judgment, first, because it was based on a *68misconception of the law, and secondly, because under the facts it constituted a manifest abuse of discretion.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into a lengthy, detailed written agreement or lease. By the terms of the lease plaintiff leased to defendant, for storage purposes, a portion of the second floor of its property on Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, for a term of two years commencing December 1, 1951. The lease gave the tenant an option to renew the term…