Taylor v. Folz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 163, Oct. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1899, No. 288, dismissing exceptions to report of referee, in case of James It. Taylor & Walter R. Taylor, trading as Taylor & Son, v. Leon H. Folz. Exceptions to report of Charles Biddle, Esq., referee. The facts are set forth in the opinion of the Superior Court. Errors assigned were in dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
It is not necessary to consider whether the referee’s report is as definite, orderly and precise, at all points, as it might properly be. While twelve exceptions were filed to it by the appellant, no defects of this nature were alleged. Though our right to reverse for error apparent on the record, not embraced in the assignment, is undoubted, it should be exercised only when necessary to prevent obvious injustice. In the case before us, no such necessity appears. The referee has found, in substance, the agreement between the parties, performance by the defendant, and the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wolf v. AugustineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900