Case ID: pa-super_124/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Goldstein v. Liebowitz, Appellant.
    Argued November 13, 1936.
    Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, BaldBIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, JAMES and RHODES, JJ.
    
      Jacob 8. Richman, with him Philip Richman, of Rich-man <& Richman, for appellant.
    
      Henry W. Balka, for appellee, was not heard.
    January 29, 1937:
   Per Curiam,

No issues were raised on the trial of this case but questions of fact, which were for the decision of the trial judge sitting without a jury. His findings in favor of the plaintiff are supported by testimony not inherently improbable and have the force and effect of the verdict of a jury. They were sustained by the court in banc, which refused a new trial.

No sufficient reason has been given us for reversing this action of the court below.

Judgment affirmed,