Childs v. Adams
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 246, Oct. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1908, No. 5, on bill in equity in case of Louis M. Childs, Receiver of the Eureka Knitting Company, v. Edward S. Adams and Edwin Metcalf. Bill in equity to compel the return of alleged illegal dividends. Before Swartz, P. J., and Weand, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Errors assigned were various findings of fact and conclusions at law.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The sound reasons which support the rule that the findings of fact of a trial judge, sitting as a chancellor, will be accepted by the appellate courts as having the same force and effect as the verdict of a jury have been *242too often stated to require a repetition here. The wisdom and the necessity of such a rule are especially apparent in a case like the present one where the conclusions of fact, adopted by the trial judge, are the result of an investigation of the business affairs of a manufacturing corporation, its system of bookkeeping, its method of dealing with its own…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ahl v. RhoadsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Cushing v. PerotSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Bunn's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- State Bank v. KirkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Mechanics' Building & Savings Ass'n No. 2's Assigned EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Murray v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Petry v. Harwood Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Cochran v. ShetlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Sunseri v. SunseriSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Pardee v. Harwood Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.