McMillin v. McMillin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

McMillin v. McMillin

38 A. 512, 183 Pa. 91, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 718

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 25, 1897

DocketAppeal, No. 3

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 A. 512 (McMillin v. McMillin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McMillin v. McMillin, 38 A. 512, 183 Pa. 91, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 718 (Pa. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cttbiam,

A careful consideration of the somewhat conflicting evidence in this case has not convinced us that the court below erred in refusing a decree in favor of the libellant and dismissing his petition with costs.

By agreement of the parties the case was heard in open court. The witnesses were called and examined in the presence of the trial judge who, by thus seeing the several witnesses, hearing them testify, observing their manner on the witness stand, etc., had much better opportunity than we have of forming a correct judgment as to their credibility and the evidential value of their testimony. His conclusions of fact should therefore be accepted as verity unless manifest error therein is clearly shown. Especially is this so where, as in this case, the testimony on the [96]*96controlling question of fact is so conflicting and apparently irreconcilable.

But, while we cannot say that the trial judge erred in holding that the alleged criminal offense charged in the libel was not proved, we think his reflections on the conduct of the libellant, quoted in the third specification, were unwarranted by anything that appears in the record.

There is nothing in the case that calls for further comment. Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

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

Pee Cttbiam,

A careful consideration of the somewhat conflicting evidence in this case has not convinced us that the court below erred in refusing a decree in favor of the libellant and dismissing his petition with costs.

By agreement of the parties the case was heard in open court. The witnesses were called and examined in the presence of the trial judge who, by thus seeing the several witnesses, hearing them testify, observing their manner on the witness stand, etc., had much better opportunity than we have of forming a correct judgment as to their credibility and the evidential value of their testimony. His conclusions of fact should therefore be accepted as verity unless manifest error therein is clearly shown. Especially is this so where, as in this case, the testimony on the [96]*96controlling question of fact is so conflicting and apparently irreconcilable.

But, while we cannot say that the trial judge erred in holding that the alleged criminal offense charged in the libel was not proved, we think his reflections on the conduct of the libellant, quoted in the third specification, were unwarranted by anything that appears in the record.

There is nothing in the case that calls for further comment. Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A. 512, 183 Pa. 91, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillin-v-mcmillin-pa-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack