December 1, 1924.
January 5, 1925.
Appeals — New trial — Error of law — Abuse of discretion.
1. An order granting a new trial will be affirmed on appeal, where the record does not demonstrate clear error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the court below.
Appeal, No. 104, Jan. T., 1925, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1921, No. 6404, refusing new trial, in case of William and Lena Weiss v. London Guarantee and Accident Company, Ltd.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ. Affirmed.
Rule for new trial. Before McDEVITT, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Rule absolute. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was order, quoting record.
Wm. W. Smithers, for appellant.
William T. Connor, with him John R. K. Scott, for appellees.
Argued December 1, 1924.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. Since the record does not demonstrate clear error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the court below in making the order assigned as error, the assignment must be overruled: Class Nachod Brewing Co. v. Giacobello, 277 Pa. 530; Republic Mortgage Co. v. Irwin et al., 278 Pa. 124; Babbitt v. Jackson, 279 Pa. 480.
The order appealed from is affirmed.