Case ID: pa-super_69/html/0018-01.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

Garford Philadelphia Company v. Walsh, Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Paper boohs — Failure to pHnt record.
    
    When appellant fails to print in his paper book essential parts of the record, making it impossible for the appellate court to pass upon the questions raised by the assignments, the judgment entered by the court below will be affirmed.
    Argued Oct. 8, 1917.
    Appeal, No. 194, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., July T., 1914, No. 368, for plaintiff on case tried by the court without a jury, in suit of Garford Philadelphia Company v. Mary T. Walsh, William Gorman and B. Frank Townsend, Jr., Trustees of the Estate of Philip J. Walsh, deceased, trading as Phil. J. Walsh Estate.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Cassidy, J.
    The trial judge found in favor of the plaintiff for |207.97. Defendant appealed.
    
      Errors assigned was in entering judgment for plaintiff and various rulings on evidence.
    
      John J. Gorman, for appellants.
    
      W. Horace Hepburn, Jr., for appellee.
    March 2, 1918:
   Per Curiam,

This is an action in' assumpsit to recover for goods sold and delivered; labor expended for repairs for defendants’ automobile, and for the hiring of an automobile truck. The case was heard in the Municipal Court without a jury, and the trial judge found for the plaintiff in the sum of |207.97. On the trial certain testimony was adduced in tbe form of letters, and the testimony taken in another issue was read on the trial that is not printed in the appellant’s paper books. However, it was admitted on the trial that the work was done, the material was furnished, and that the charges therefor were reasonable, —as evidenced by the testimony of tbe chief engineer of the defendant company, who admitted that be bad ok’d the bill now in suit. The finding in plaintiff’s favor was fully warranted by the testimony. When appellant fails to print in bis paper book essential parts of the record, making it impossible for the appellate court to pass upon the questions raised by the assignments, the judgment entered by tbe court below Avill be affirmed: Commonwealth v. Sober, 22 Pa. Superior Court, 22; Long v. Hepps, 45 Pa. Superior Ct. 76.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.