Myers v. Consumers' Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Myers v. Consumers' Coal Co.

77 A. 629, 228 Pa. 444, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 507

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 24, 1910

DocketAppeal, No. 176

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 A. 629 (Myers v. Consumers' Coal Co.) 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

Myers v. Consumers' Coal Co., 77 A. 629, 228 Pa. 444, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 507 (Pa. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

When this case was here before, 212 Pa. 193, it was on an appeal from the decision of a single judge and not from the decree of the court. After pointing out the error in the procedure, and holding that the appeal should have been from the decree of the court in banc, we formally sustained one of the assignments, and sent the case back to the trial court with the suggestion that the “rulings (of the court) may not be in accord with those of the single judge who entered this decree, after a trial had in accordance with the views expressed above.” The court below construed our judgment “as a direction that another trial should be had,” and, with some additional testimony, the case was again heard by the chancellor and the court in banc from whose decree this appeal was taken. Every question of fact and law has been most carefully considered by the court and we are not prepared to say that, on the evidence submitted in the case, it has committed reversible error. Had we been sitting as the chancellor we might have found some of the facts differently, but that does not warrant a reversal. Under the well-established rule, we will not interfere with a chancellor’s findings made on sufficient evidence unless he is convicted of clear and manifest error. The record does not disclose such error, and, hence, the assignments must be overruled and the appeal be dismissed.

Decree affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

When this case was here before, 212 Pa. 193, it was on an appeal from the decision of a single judge and not from the decree of the court. After pointing out the error in the procedure, and holding that the appeal should have been from the decree of the court in banc, we formally sustained one of the assignments, and sent the case back to the trial court with the suggestion that the “rulings (of the court) may not be in accord with those of the single judge who entered this decree, after a trial had in accordance with the views expressed above.” The court below construed our judgment “as a direction that another trial should be had,” and, with some additional testimony, the case was again heard by the chancellor and the court in banc from whose decree this appeal was taken. Every question of fact and law has been most carefully considered by the court and we are not prepared to say that, on the evidence submitted in the case, it has committed reversible error. Had we been sitting as the chancellor we might have found some of the facts differently, but that does not warrant a reversal. Under the well-established rule, we will not interfere with a chancellor’s findings made on sufficient evidence unless he is convicted of clear and manifest error. The record does not disclose such error, and, hence, the assignments must be overruled and the appeal be dismissed.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A. 629, 228 Pa. 444, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-consumers-coal-co-pa-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack