
    THE MIFFLINBURG BANK v. BICKHART.
    Appeal and Ereos — Granting 9F Motion for . New Trial Not Rbviewable on Writ of Error.
    The unconditional granting of a motion for a new trial may not he reviewed on writ of error.
    Error to Oakland; Gillespie (Glenn C.), J.
    Submitted June 12, 1923.
    (Docket No. 96.)
    Decided July 19, 1923.
    Assumpsit by The Mifflinburg Bank against John Bickhart, doing business as the Paulding Milling Company, and another on certain promissory notes. From an order granting defendants’ motion for a new trial, plaintiff brings error.
    Dismissed.
    
      George A. Sutton, for appellant.
    
      George O. Kinsman, for appellees.
   Clark, J.

The trial judge granted, unconditionally, defendants’ motion for a new trial. Plaintiff seeks review on writ of error.

The unconditional granting of a motion for a new trial may not be reviewed on writ of error. See Decker v. Fair, 222 Mich. 507; Carton v. Day, 157 Mich. 43; 3 Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 13736, 12635, and cases cited in the annotations.

The writ is dismissed, with costs to defendants.

Wiest, C. J., and Fellows, McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.  