Case ID: sadler_3/html/0494-01.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

Overseers of the Poor of Madison Township, Plffs. in Err., v. Overseers of the Poor of Brady’s Bend Township.
    Where the plaintiff’s points and the answers of the court below thereto depended upon the proofs, and the evidence is not presented to this court, it cannot say that such answers were wrong.
    The opinion of the court below is no part of the record; and although the substance of the evidence is stated therein, this court cannot adopt it as a substitute for the proofs on which the court below acted.
    Note. — The opinion of the court on a motion for a new trial is not a part of the record, and assignments of error thereto will not be considered (Com. v. Church, 1 Pa. St. 105, 44 Am. Dec. 112; Fullerton’s Estate, 146 Pa. 61, 23 Atl. 321) ; or in entering a non-suit (Scanlon v. Suter, 158 Pa. 275, 27 Atl. 963) ; or in dismissing a petition for discharge under the insolvency laws (Owen’s Petition, 140 Pa. 565, 21 Atl. 416). And the record cannot be corrected by statements in the opinion. Cathcart v. Com. 37 Pa. 108.
    (Decided October 25, 1886.)
    Error of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Clarion County to review a decree sustaining an appeal and discharging an order of removal of a pauper.
    Affirmed.
    The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
    The assignments of error specified the action of the court in refusing plaintiffs’ points.
    
      B. J. & A. B. Reid for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Frank R. Hindman for defendants in error.
   Per Curiam:

The evidence in this case not having heen presented to us, we cannot say that the court’s answers to the plaintiffs’ points were wrong, since both points and answers depended upon the proofs submitted. It is urged that the substance of the evidence is stated in the opinion of the court; but as that opinion is no part of the record, we cannot adopt it as a substitute for the proofs on which the court acted.

The judgment, is affirmed.