Deacon v. Hendricks

Citation66 Pa.Super. 36
Decision Date13 March 1917
Docket Number369-1915
PartiesDeacon, Appellant, v. Hendricks
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Argued November 2, 1916

Appeal by plaintiff, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co.-1915, No. 423, for defendant on trial by the court without a jury in case of John R. Deacon v. Edith S. Hendricks.

Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Bonniwell, J.

Error assigned was the judgment of the court in favor of the defendant for $ 496.80.

Affirmed.

John Mahn Thissell, with him J. Quincy Hunsicker, for appellant.

Leon H. Folz, with him Stanley Folz, for appellee.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.

OPINION

Per Curiam

On the trial in the court below, which was had without a jury, there were no requests for any finding of fact, and the record does not disclose an exception to the ruling of the court, either to the admission or exclusion of evidence. The finding is, the conclusion of the trial judge, based on the testimony presented, and we follow the rule laid down in Herring v. Weinroth, 61 Pa.Super. 529, and in Peoples v. Philadelphia, 62 Pa.Super. 553, in which we held, " If the assignments of error are not based on anything brought into the record by bill of exception, the only question legitimately raised by them is whether the judgment was regular and responsive to the issue presented by the pleadings. The general finding was responsive to the issue presented by the pleadings, and as the issue was one of fact depending for its determination on oral testimony, the finding as perfectly supported the judgment entered thereon, as would the general verdict of a jury upon the same issue . . . . Where an issue of fact depends on oral testimony it is the province of the jury, if the case be tried before a jury, or of the court, if the case be tried by the court without a jury, to decide."

After a careful consideration we accept the conclusion reached by the trial judge, and the judgment is affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Robinson Elec. Co. v. Capitol Trucking Corp.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • March 12, 1951
    ...amply supported by the evidence. Horsfield v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 124 Pa.Super. 458, 462, 189 A. 892; Deacon v. Hendricks, 66 Pa.Super. 36; Emerson C. Custis & Co. v. Tradesmans National Bank & Trust Co., 155 Pa.Super. 282, 284, 38 A.2d The granting of a new trial on the ground......
  • McKeage Mach. Co. v. Osborne & Sexton Mach. Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • December 21, 1936
    ...finding of the learned trial judge; and that finding in plaintiff's favor is equivalent to the verdict of a jury. Deacon v. Hendricks, 66 Pa.Super. 36; Emmons v. Courtenay, 66 Pa.Super. The first and second assignments of error must therefore be overruled. The third assignment of error rela......
  • Cohen v. Keystone Mut. Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • January 28, 1943
    ...of law which led to such finding. See Philadelphia & Gulf Steamship Co. v. Clark, 59 Pa. Super. 415, 422; Deacon v. Hendricks, 66 Pa.Super. 36; Jann v. Linton's Lunch, Pa.Super., 29 A.2d 219. Defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. having been dismissed and judgment entered on the finding, d......
  • Cohen v. Keystone Mutual Casualty Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • January 28, 1943
    ... ... conclusions of law which led to such finding. See ... Philadelphia & Gulf Steamship Co. v. Clark, 59 ... Pa.Super. 415, 422; Deacon v. Hendricks, 66 ... Pa.Super. 36; Jann v. Linton's Lunch , 150 ... Pa.Super. 653, 29 A.2d 219. Defendant's motion for ... judgment n.o.v. having ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT