Case ID: pa_277/html/0164-01.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

Fisher et al., Appellants, v. Ronemus et al.
    
      Appeals — ^Evidence—Offer not sustained — Nonsuit—Second appeal.
    
    1. Where a case tried by the court without a jury is reversed on appeal on the ground that plaintiff was entitled to prove the facts stated in an offer which was rejected, and, on a second trial, the court enters judgment for defendant because plaintiff failed to sustain his offer, the judgment will not be reversed, if, on the proofs presented, such judgment was proper.
    Argued March 6, 1923.
    Appeal, No. 289, Jan. T., 1923, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Carbon Co., Oct. T., 1917, No. 49, for defendants on case tried by the court without a jury, in suit of John Fisher et al. v. Johns S. Ronemus and Hugh McGorry, as custodians of the Death Beneficial Fund raised and created by the organization of Mine Workingmen of the Village of Nesquehoning.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
    April 9, 1923:
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for death benefit. Before Barber, P. J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. See also Fisher v. Ronemus, 267 Pa. 325.
    Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Error assigned, inter alia, was judgment, quoting it.
    
      Ben Branch, of Freyman, Thomas & Branch, for apr pellants.
    
      Geo. M. Roads, with him P. B. Roads, for appellees.
   Per Curiam,

This case was tried by the court below without a jury, under the Act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 35. Judgment was entered for defendants and plaintiffs have appealed.

The details of the case appear in Fisher et al. v. Ronemus et al., 267 Pa. 325, where we removed a nonsuit because, as we there held, plaintiff was entitled to prove the facts stated in an offer of evidence which the court below declined to receive. When the case came to trial the second time, however, plaintiff failed to sustain his offer, and the court below, on the proofs presented, concluded defendants were entitled to judgment. In this we see no error.

The judgment is affirmed.