Case ID: pa-super_66/html/0035-01.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

Emmons v. Courtenay, Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Review—Findings of fact by Municipal Gourt of Philadelphia County.
    
    Where a case is tried by a judge of the Municipal Oourt of Philadelphia County without a jury, and only disputed questions of fact are involved, a finding in favor of the plaintiff on competent testimony will not be reversed by the appellate court in the absence of manifest error or abuse of discretion.
    Submitted Noy. 2, 1916.
    Appeal, No. 174, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Feb. T., 1916, No. 814, for plaintiff on trial by the court without a jury in case of Louis C. Emmons and James. A. Emmons, copartners trading as Emmons Coal Mining Co. v. Patrick J. Courtenay.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
    Knowles, J., who tried the case without a jury, found as follows:
    “In this case claim is made for the payment of 94 tons of coal which admittedly was delivered by the plaintiff to. the defendant and for which the plaintiff is asking a payment of $177.48. The defendant contends that the coal was guaranteed to be low in sulphur and low in ash, and that it was practically worthless. The court, as a question of fact, finds that whatever statements, if any, were made by the salesman, Emmons, to the defendant, at the time when the coal was sold to him, were in the nature of a puff, and not in the nature of a guarantee. It appears from the evidence that the coal was delivered and was used, and that the defendant did not make any tests in order to discover whether or not the coal was low in sulphur or low in ash. The defendant testifies that when used with other coal, the consumption of the coal delivered by the plaintiff; was sufficient to enable him to provide power for the various tenants in the building. For this reason, as a question of fact, the court finds in favor of the plaintiff for $123.93.”
    
      Error assigned was the judgment of the court.
    
      R. H. Locke, for appellant.
    No printed brief for appellee.
    March 13, 1917:
   Per Curiam,

Only disputed questions of fact are involved in this appeal. The case was tried by a judge of the Municipal Court without a jury, and resulted in a finding in favor of the plaintiff. No authority is cited by the appellant, suggesting an error on any question of law involved on the trial. The opinion of Judge Knowles is fully sustained by an examination of the testimony, and for the reasons he gives, the judgment is affirmed.