Auslander v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- DURHAM BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. Pollard (N.C. 1961)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This appeal is from an order granting a new trial. The trial judge had admitted a certified transcript of the proceedings before an alderman, offered in evidence by defendant. The learned court below en banc says: “We believe this to have been substantial and prejudicial error such as warrants a new trial, and for that reason alone a new trial will be granted: Magee v. Scott, 32 Pa. 539-540; Katterman v. Stitzer, 7 Watts 189-192; Wol *474 verton v. Com., for use, 7 S. & R. 273-4; Miller v. Brink, 14 D. & C. 292.”
We agree that the admission of the transcript was prejudicial error. There was, therefore, no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial. We have uniformly held that under such circumstances we will not interfere with the action of the court below: Kerr v. Hofer, 341 Pa. 47, 17 A. 2d 886; Weinfeld v. Funk, 342 Pa. 160, 20 A. 2d 206; Schornig v. Speer, 343 Pa. 649, 24 A. 2d 12.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.