1. The District Court's denial of a new trial, upon remittitur
of part of the verdict in this case, was not without support in the
record, and its action should not have been disturbed by the Court
of Appeals. P. 350 U. S. 77
2. This Court refuses to decide constitutional questions when
the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not
properly raised here by the parties. P. 350 U. S.
216 F.2d 772 reversed.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 216 F.2d 772,
without reaching the constitutional challenge to that court's
jurisdiction to review the denial by the trial court of a motion
for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive. Even
assuming such appellate power to exist under the Seventh Amendment,
we find that the Court of Appeals was not justified, on this
record, in regarding the denial of a new trial, upon a remittitur
of part of the verdict, as an abuse of discretion. For, apart from
that question, as we view the evidence, we think that the action of
the trial court was not without support in the record, and
accordingly that its action should not have been disturbed by the
Court of Appeals.
Page 350 U. S. 78
We need not consider respondent's contention that only the
jurisdictional question was presented by the petition for
certiorari, for, in reversing on the above ground, we follow the
traditional practice of this Court of refusing to decide
constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of
decision, whether or not they have been properly raised before us
by the parties. See Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.
, 349 U. S. 338
Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U.
, 329 U. S. 132
329 U. S. 136
329 U. S.