Moffatt v. Wetherill

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Moffatt v. Wetherill

95 Pa. Super. 45, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 94

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 13, 1928

DocketAppeal 299

StatusPublished

This text of 95 Pa. Super. 45 (Moffatt v. Wetherill) 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

Moffatt v. Wetherill, 95 Pa. Super. 45, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 94 (Pa. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Linn, .J.,

Plaintiff has judgment, after a trial by a judge without a jury, in a suit on a promissory note made by defendant partnership. The note was given by defendant to plaintiff for hi's interest in what had theretofore been a partnership composed of himself and the two members of defendant firm.

In appellant’s brief it is said: “The case is a clear-cut issue of credibility.” The evidence need not be stated. The dispute turned on whether the parties had made an error of $1,000' in striking the balance payable to plaintiff for his interest on retiring; there was evidence both ways; the fact was found against *47 defendant by the judge who, it was' agreed, should find the facts; defendant, as well as this court, is bound by the result which is responsive to the issues on which evidence was offered.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Linn, .J.,

Plaintiff has judgment, after a trial by a judge without a jury, in a suit on a promissory note made by defendant partnership. The note was given by defendant to plaintiff for hi's interest in what had theretofore been a partnership composed of himself and the two members of defendant firm.

In appellant’s brief it is said: “The case is a clear-cut issue of credibility.” The evidence need not be stated. The dispute turned on whether the parties had made an error of $1,000' in striking the balance payable to plaintiff for his interest on retiring; there was evidence both ways; the fact was found against *47 defendant by the judge who, it was' agreed, should find the facts; defendant, as well as this court, is bound by the result which is responsive to the issues on which evidence was offered.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 Pa. Super. 45, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moffatt-v-wetherill-pasuperct-1928.