
    Wray, Moore & Company v. American Railway Express Company, Appellant.
    
      Practice, Superior 0<o.urt — Appeal involving questions disposed of in former a/ppeal — Dismissal.
    "Where an appeal has been taken from a decree of the lower court reducing a verdict and, upon reversal, has been remanded for the purpose of allowing the lower court to dispose of a motion for a new trial, which is dismissed, and a second appeal is taken involving the same record as was con§idered in the former proceeding, the judgment of the lower court, entered in accordance with the direction of the Superior Court, will be affirmed.
    Argued October 25, 1921.
    Appeal, No. 245, Oct. T., 1921, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Blair Co., .June T., 1921, No. 424, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Wray, Moore & Company, a Limited Partnership Association, v. The American Railway Express Company, Successor to Adams Express Company.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler, Keller and Linn, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit to recover the value of goods damaged or spoiled in transit. Before Ba-ldrige, P. J.
    Prom the record it appeared that the plaintiffs recovered a verdict in the sum of $285.16 in a suit instituted to October Term, 1919, No. 184, and reported in 75 Pa. Superior Ct. 425. Subsequently the court reduced the verdict to $122.40 and entered judgment thereon. This action was reversed by the Superior Court, but it appearing that there had been no formal entry disposing of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, the record was remanded to the court below with instructions to dispose of such motion as right and justice should require, and if a new trial were refused to enter judgment on the verdict for the plaintiffs. Subsequently the court overruled the motion for a new trial and directed judgment to be entered on the verdict in accordance with the opinion of the Superior Court. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned, among others, was in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial.
    
      J. D. Hicks, and with him Thomas H. Greeny, for appellant.
    
      Robert W. Smith, for appellee.
    November 21, 1921:
   Per Curiam,

A new trial having been refused and judgment having been entered by the court below pursuant to our order made on plaintiff’s appeal (75 Pa. Superior Ct. 425), defendant has appealed, bringing up the same record which we considered before. We have examined it in the light of the criticisms contained in the assignments of error now filed by appellant and find no occasion to add anything to what we said in disposing of the former appeal.

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.  