Opinion
March 25, 1958.
April 21, 1958.
Practice — New trial — Grounds — Verdict against weight of evidence — Court below — Discretion.
In this action of assumpsit in which the court below granted a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, it was Held that the court below did not abuse its discretion.
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissented.
Argued March 25, 1958. Before JONES, C. J., BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, JONES and COHEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 49, March T., 1958, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1955-C, No. 2899, in case of Maximilian Nirdlinger v. John M. Seidel, Sr. Order affirmed.
Assumpsit. Before SMART, J.
Verdict entered for plaintiff in amount of $30,000; defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. refused, and motion for new trial granted. Plaintiff appealed.
Franklyn E. Conflenti, with him S. V. Albo, and M. E. Catanzaro, for appellant. A. Leonard Balter, and Rubin Balter, for appellee, were not heard.
Plaintiff, an architect, instituted an action in assumpsit in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to recover commissions which the defendant allegedly agreed to pay him for his services. The case was submitted to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $30,000. Defendant filed a motion for judgment n.o.v., which was refused by the court en banc, and for a new trial, which was granted for the principal reason that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. From the order of the court en banc awarding a new trial the appellant has taken this appeal.
A review of the record convinces us that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial and consequently its order must be affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissents.