Letvin v. Phoenix Ins. Co.

Full title: Letvin v. Phœnix Insurance Company, Appellant

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 26, 1926

87 Pa. Super. 402 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1926)

Opinion

December 16, 1925.

February 26, 1926.

Appeals — Judgment non obstante veredicto — Essential facts disputed — New trial.

An appeal from the refusal of the court below to enter judgment non obstante veredicto, will be dismissed, where it appeared that the suit involved disputes concerning essential facts depending on oral evidence, and that a new trial had been granted.

Appeal No. 362, October T., 1925, by defendant from judgment of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, August T., 1923, No. 922, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Morris Letvin vs. The Phoenix Insurance Company, of Hartford, Conn.

Before ORLADY, P.J., PORTER, HENDERSON, TREXLER, KELLER, LINN and GAWTHROP, JJ. Appeal dismissed.

Suit on a fire insurance policy. Before LEWIS, J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. Subsequently the Court on motion, granted a new trial. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned was the refusal of defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

Horace Michener Schell, for appellant. Gabriel D. Weiss, and with him, Henry Arronson, for appellee.

Submitted December 16, 1925.

PER CURIAM, February 26, 1926:

Plaintiff got a verdict in his suit on a policy insuring him against damage by fire to his automobile. Defendant moved for a new trial and for judgment n.o.v., pursuant to the act of April 9, 1925, P.L. 221. The court refused judgment n.o.v., but granted a new trial. Defendant appeals and assigns for error the refusal of judgment n.o.v. The suit involves disputes concerning essential facts, depending on oral evidence, which, as the case may be tried again, we shall not discuss. As those facts are in dispute, judgment n.o.v. could not have been entered, — a conclusion that disposes of the only error assigned. Our attention has not been called to anything indicating that the court below unwisely exercised the judicial discretion vested in it to grant a new trial; for a construction of the act of 1925 see Lafayette March v. Philadelphia and West Chester Traction Co., ___ Pa. ___ (February 1, 1926).

Appeal dismissed.