
    International Forge Co. v. Paul S. Reeves & Co., Inc., Appellant.
    
      Practice, Supreme Court — Appeals—Assignments of error — Motion for judgment n. o. v. — Withdrawal of motion — New trial — Verdict excessive.
    
    1. The withdrawal of an assignment of error to the refusal of a motion for judgment n. o. v. is an admission that the case is for the jury.
    2. The appellate court will not reverse a judgment on a verdict because the trial court refused a new trial, where no error is assigned to the admission or rejection of testimony, or to the charge of the court, and the only reasons assigned for a new trial in the court below were that the verdict was against the law, the evidence, the weight of the evidence, the charge of the court, and was excessive.
    Argued March 25,1919.
    Appeal, No. 261, Jan. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1917, No. 2525, on verdict for plaintiff in case of International Forge Co., Inc., v. Paul S. Reeves & Co., Inc.
    Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit to recover the value of certain lost metal. Before McMichael, P. J.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,146.35. Defendant appealed.
    
      
      Errors assigned were as follows:
    1. The learned trial judge erred in refusing to make absolute defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
    2. The learned trial judge erred in dismissing clefendant’s motion for new trial.
    
      Leo MacFarland, for appellant.
    
      William H. Peace, for appellee.
    April 21, 1919:
   Per Curiam,

The appellant entered into a written contract with the appellee to manufacture castings for it out of materials to be furnished by it. The contract provided that the appellant should “stand all metal losses,” and this action was brought to recover the value of lost metals furnished to it. On this appeal from the judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiff there were originally two assignments of error, the first to the refusal of the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, and > the second to the dismissal of the rule for a new trial. The first was withdrawn, and its withdrawal was an admission that the case was for the jury. The reasons assigned in the court below in asking for a new trial were: “1. The verdict was against the law. 2. The verdict was against the evidence. 3. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 4. The verdict was against the charge of the court. 5. The verdict was excessive.” No complaint was made below, and none is made here, of the admission or rejection of testimony or of the charge of the court, and there is, therefore, no reason why the case should go to a second jury.

Judgment affirmed.  