U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1919

Farrell v. First Nat. Bank of Philadelphia

Farrell v. First Nat. Bank of Philadelphia
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided January 15, 1919 · Buffington, Woolley
254 F. 801; 166 C.C.A. 247; 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1571

Counsel

Henry A. Rubino and Van Vechten Veeder, both of New York City, and J. Howard Reber, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs in error., Joseph S. Clark and Owen J. Roberts, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant in error.

Farrell v. First Nat. Bank of Philadelphia

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

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

PER CURIAM.

[1,2] The error assigned in this case is the granting by the court below of a new trial. The grant of a new trial is one of the most useful discretionary powers of a trial court. It is not often exercised by the experienced District Judges of this circuit, *802and when done it is only, as they conceive, in furtherance of the due administration of justice. In no case in this circuit has it been held that a writ of error will lie to such grant of a new trial by the trial judge. Such step is only taken with reluctance, but when it is done there is every presumption that it was done in pursuance of a wise discretion, and in furtherance of justice, as the trial judge conceives.

It is alleged in this case that there was an abuse of ¡discretion, because the trial judge, it is contended, granted the new trial on a mistaken view of the law. We do not deemi it wise, at the present stage of this case, to express or indicate any view on that question, but confine ourselves to quashing the writ and allowing the whole case to come before us upon entry of final judgment, if error be then assigned.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.