Opinion
October 5, 1937.
November 12, 1937.
Appeals — Review — Order granting new trial — Inadequacy of verdict.
Where a new trial is granted because the verdict is inadequate, an appellate court will hesitate to review the order granting a new trial, especially where it appears from the argument and the opinion of the court below that the amount was manifestly too small.
Argued October 5, 1937.
Before KEPHART, C. J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 155, 156 and 157, March T., 1937, from orders of C. P. Beaver Co., March T., 1936, Nos. 207 and 208, in cases of Catherine Dickson, a minor, by her father and next friend, James Dickson, and James Dickson in his own right, v. Edward K. Doherr; and Mary Dickson v. Edward K. Doherr. Appeal dismissed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before READER, P. J.
Verdicts against defendant, in favor of minor plaintiff in sum of $100, and in favor of other plaintiff in sum of $295; no verdict was returned in case of parent plaintiff. Motions for new trial granted on ground that verdicts were inadequate. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was granting of new trial.
Harold F. Reed, of Reed Ewing, with him Robert L. Orr, for appellant.
Stewart P. McConnel and Wm. A. McConnel Sons, for appellees.
An appellate court may reverse an order granting a new trial because of the amount of the verdict; but where a new trial is granted because the verdict is inadequate, an appellate court will hesitate to consider the order granting a new trial, especially where it appears from the argument and the opinion of the court below that the amounts were manifestly too small.
Appeal dismissed.