Case Name: Stokes, Appellant v. John Crompton Company
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1909-02-26
Citations: 38 Pa. Super. 474
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 234
Parties: Stokes, Appellant v. John Crompton Company.
Judges: Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 474–475

Head Matter:
Stokes, Appellant v. John Crompton Company.
February 26, 1909:
Equity — Accounting—Findings of fact.
On a bill in equity for an accounting against a corporation where the question involved is purely a question of fact growing out of the disputed testimony of the plaintiff, and a person with whom he alleges he made his contract to bind the defendant, the appellate court will not review the findings of fact of the trial judge where there has been no manifest error.
Argued Dec. 19, 1908.
Appeal, No. 234, Oct. T., 1908, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1907, No. 4,309, dismissing bill in equity in case of George E. Stokes v. The John Crompton Company.
Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.
Affirmed.
Bill in equity for an account.
Error assigned was decree dismissing the bill.
E. Spencer Miller, for appellant:
Archibald T. Johnson, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Orlady, J,,
After a careful review of the testimony taken in the court below, we feel that the trial judge was fully warranted in dismissing the plaintiff's bill.
The real question involved in the case is purely a question of fact growing out of the disputed testimony of the plaintiff arid the person with whom he alleges he made his contract to bind the defendant company.
No good purpose would be served by reviewing the testimony, there being in our judgment sufficient competent testimony to warrant the conclusion that the plaintiff's right to an accounting is against Alonzo W. Platt, and to him he must look.
The judgment is affirmed.