Flannery v. O'Hara
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
An assignment of error which attempts to raise two distinct questions violates Rule XIV, and will not be considered. Practice, Municipal Court of Philadelphia — Trial by court without a jury — Findings. On the trial of a case without a jury in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, where the case is to be decided on oral testimony, the finding of.the trial judge is as conclusive on appeal as a similar verdict would have been if there had been a jury trial.
Read the full summary
An assignment of error which attempts to raise two distinct questions violates Rule XIV, and will not be considered. Practice, Municipal Court of Philadelphia — Trial by court without a jury — Findings. On the trial of a case without a jury in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, where the case is to be decided on oral testimony, the finding of.the trial judge is as conclusive on appeal as a similar verdict would have been if there had been a jury trial. Appeal, No. 240, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Feb. T., 1915, No. 184, for plaintiff on…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rich, P. J.,
This case was tried by the court without a jury. In respect of procedure it does not differ materially from Peoples v. Philadelphia, 62 Pa. Superior Ct. 553. So far as the question sought to be raised by the first and fourth assignments of error are concerned it is governed by the same principles.
The second and third assignments do not quote .the rulings referred to, nor state where they may be found. Moreover, the second assignment attempts to raise two distinct questions in violation of Rule XIY of this court, and so far as it relates to the exclusion of evidence, it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Peoples v. PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stawecka v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Stein v. Hopewell Chocolate Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925