
    Letvin v. Phœnix Insurance Company, Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Judgment' non obstante^ veredicto — Essential facts disputed — Ne¡w trial.
    
    An appeal froiol the refusal of the court below to enter judgment non obstante veredicto, will be dismissed, where it appeared that the suit involved disputes concerning essential facts depending on oral evidence, and that a new trial had been granted.
    Submitted December 16, 1925.
    Appeal No. 362, October T., 1925, by defendant from judgment of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, August T., 1923, No. 922, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Morris Letvin vs. The Phoenix Insurance Company, of Hartford, Conn.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Suit on a fire insurance policy. Before Lewis, J.
    The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
    The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. Subsequently the Court on motion, granted a new trial. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
    
      Horace Michener Schell, for appellant.
    
      
      Gabriel D. Weiss, and with him, Henry Arronson, for appellee.
    February 26, 1926:
   Per Curiam,

Plaintiff got a verdict in his suit on a policy insuring him against damage by fire to his automobile. Defendant moyed for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v., pursuant to the act of April 9,1925, P. L. 221. The court refused judgment n. o. v., but granted a new trial. Defendant appeals and assigns for error the refusal of judgment n. o. v. The suit involves disputes concerning essential facts, depending on oral evidence, which, as the case may be tried again, we shall not discuss. As those facts are in dispute, judgment n. o. v. could not have been entered, — a conclusion that disposes of the only error assigned. Our attention has not been called to anything indicating that the court below unwisely exercised the judicial discretion vested in it to grant a new trial; for a construction of the act of 1925 see Lafayette March v. Philadelphia and West Chester Traction Co., -- Pa. — (February 1, 1926).

Appeal dismissed.  