Flannery v. O'Hara

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Flannery v. O'Hara

62 Pa. Super. 555, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 473

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 17, 1916

DocketAppeal, No. 240

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 62 Pa. Super. 555 (Flannery v. O'Hara) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flannery v. O'Hara, 62 Pa. Super. 555, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 473 (Pa. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

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The second and third assignments do not quote .the rulings referred to, nor state where they may be found.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 is in violation of Rule XIY of this court. The other complaints informally suggested in these two assignments involve questions of fact arising upon legally competent testimony which it was the exclusive province of the trial court to decide. If the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses be believed the plaintiff’s right to maintain the action in his own name and to recover the amount claimed was clear. Presumably the court did credit it and based its general finding upon it. Therefore, the finding is as conclusive on appeal as a similar verdict would have been if there had been a jury trial.

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Adopted by the court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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The second and third assignments do not quote .the rulings referred to, nor state where they may be found.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 is in violation of Rule XIY of this court. The other complaints informally suggested in these two assignments involve questions of fact arising upon legally competent testimony which it was the exclusive province of the trial court to decide. If the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses be believed the plaintiff’s right to maintain the action in his own name and to recover the amount claimed was clear. Presumably the court did credit it and based its general finding upon it. Therefore, the finding is as conclusive on appeal as a similar verdict would have been if there had been a jury trial.

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Adopted by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Pa. Super. 555, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flannery-v-ohara-pasuperct-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack