
    Crowl Building Company, Appellant, v. Beacon Match Company.
    
      Appeals — New trials — Discretion of court.
    
    In an action of assumpsit for work and labor done, the action of the lower court in granting a new trial will be affirmed in the absence of any abuse of discretion.
    Class & Nachod Brewing Co. v. Giacobello, 277 Pa. 530, followed.
    
      Argued October 25, 1927.
    Appeal No. 9, March T., 1928, by plaintiff from judgment of C. P. Snyder County, February T., 1926, No. 51, in the case of Preston Crowl and Guy Crowl, Co-partners, trading and doing business under the firm name, style and title of Crowl Building Company.
    Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop and Cunningham, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for work and labor done. Before Potter, P. J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. ; ■'
    Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,799.35. Subsequently, on motion of defendant, the court granted a new trial. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned, among others, was the order of the Court.
    
      Charles C. Lark, and with him A. F. Gilbert, for appellant.
    
      Bichará II. Klein, of Knight and Taggart, and with him Charles P. Ulrich, for appellee.
    December 16, 1927:
   Per Curiam,

Appellants got a verdict in their suit to recover a balance due for work and labor done. On defendant’s motion, a new trial was granted. That action is the sole error assigned. We have examined the record in the light of the argument presented on behalf of appellants and have concluded that no abuse of discretion has been shown within the rules so thoroughly considered in Class & Nachod Brewing Co. v. Giacobello, 277 Pa. 530.

Judgment affirmed.  