Grauel v. Wolfe
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 186, Jan. T., 1897, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dee. T., 1888, No. 732, sustaining exceptions to referee’s report. Trespass for deceit to recover damages for alleged false and fraudulent representations made in the sale of the stock, fixtures and good will of a coffee roasting establishment by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 186, Jan. T., 1897, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dee. T., 1888, No. 732, sustaining exceptions to referee’s report. Trespass for deceit to recover damages for alleged false and fraudulent representations made in the sale of the stock, fixtures and good will of a coffee roasting establishment by the defendant to the plaintiff. The referee, Frank L. Lyle, Esq., found the facts to be as follows: 1. Jacob S. Wolfe, the defendant, owned and carried on the coffee roasting business at No. 2239 Wright street, Philadelphia. In January, 1888, he agreed to sell the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
The findings of fact by a master or referee, based upon his belief as to the credibility of witnesses and the effect to be given to their testimony, are entitled to the same consideration as the verdict of a jury, and should not bo set aside except for manifest error; but when the facts found are mere deductions from undisputed testimony, or from other facts found from the testimony, they are given no greater weight than his findings of law. The rule is well stated by our Brother McCollum: in the opinion in McConomy v. Reed, 152 Pa. 42: “ It may be stated as a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McConomy v. ReedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commercial Motors Mortgage Corp. v. WatersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Gould v. FlatoNew York Supreme Court · 1938
- Holland v. HayesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909