Case Name: Deacon, Appellant, v. Hendricks
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1917-03-13
Citations: 66 Pa. Super. 36
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 369
Parties: Deacon, Appellant, v. Hendricks.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 36–37

Head Matter:
Deacon, Appellant, v. Hendricks.
Practice — Municipal Court of Philadelphia County — Effect of general finding.
Where a case is tried by the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County without a jury, and the plaintiff’s case depends upon oral testimony, and no requests are presented for findings of fact or conclusions of law, a general finding for the defendant, if it is responsive to the issue presented by the pleadings, has the foz’ce of the general verdict of a jury.
Argued Nov. 2,1916.
Appeal, No. 369, Oct;- T., 1915, by' plaintiff,' from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., May T., 1915, No. 423, for defendant on trial by the court without a jury in case of John R. Deacon v. ■Edith S. Hendricks.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Affirmed.
Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Bonniwell, J.
Error assigned was the judgment of the court in favor of the defendant for $496.80.
John Malm This sell, with him J. Quincy Hunsiclcer, for appellant.
Leon II. Fohs, with him Stanley Folz, for appellee.
March 13, 1917:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
On the trial in the court below, which was had without a jury, there were no requests for any finding of fact, and the record does not disclose an exception to the ruling of the court, either to the admission or exclusion of evidence. The finding is, the conclusion of the trial judge, based on the testimony presented, and we follow the rule laid down in Herring v. Weinroth, 61 Pa. Superior Ct. 529, and in Peoples v. Philadelphia, 62 Pa. Superior Ct. 553, in which we held, "If the assignments of error are not based on anything brought into the record by bill of exception, the only question legitimately raised by them is whether the judgment was regular and responsive to the issue presented by the pleadings. The general finding was responsive to the issue presented by the pleadings, and as the issue was one of fact depending for its determination on oral testimony, the finding as perfectly supported the judgment entered thereon, as would the general verdict of a jury upon the same issue.......Where an issue of fact depends on oral testimony it is the province of the jury, if the case be tried before a jury, or of the court, if the case be tried by the court without a jury, to decide."
After a careful consideration we accept the conclusion reached by the trial'judge, and the judgment is affirmed.