Vineland Poultry Co. v. Schwartz

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Vineland Poultry Co. v. Schwartz

90 Pa. Super. 168, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 34

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 18, 1926

DocketAppeal 216

StatusPublished

This text of 90 Pa. Super. 168 (Vineland Poultry Co. v. Schwartz) 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

Vineland Poultry Co. v. Schwartz, 90 Pa. Super. 168, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 34 (Pa. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Tr.exler, J.,

This was a suit in assumpsit on a book account against the defendants, Sam Schwartz and Bella Schwartz, tried by the judge without a jury. The only question that is properly before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of the judge in favor of the plaintiff. The testimony of the plaintiff which we must regard as verity discloses that during July and August, 1925, he engaged in the wholesale poultry business in Atlantic City and delivered poultry to Sam and Bella Schwartz which she paid for.

Formerly, in the early part of the season, Becker & Schwartz ran the business for a while, Becker guaranteeing the account. One day, Becker told the plaintiff that he would not guarantee the account any longer and the plaintiff then closed the account that stood in the name of Becker & Schwartz and entered it in the name of Bella & Sam Schwartz. The place was run as a butcher shop. Mrs. Schwartz was in constant attendance. The date when Schwartz took this business was July 20th and upon that day the new account was opened. The bills were rendered “Schwartz,” without indicating the first name. Mrs. Schwartz told the plaintiff that it was her business and said that she would be responsible for the bills and when asked to pay the bill, she said that she could not pay at that time, but if the plaintiff continued to give her credit, she would pay. The plaintiff had no dealing with Sam Schwartz. Sam deserted his wife sometime during the summer and the business was continued by her as usual.

This testimony shows that there was sufficient for the trial judge, sitting as judge and jury, to come to *170 the conclusion that the goods were furnished jointly to Sum and his wife and that she was a partner in the business. The lower court committed no error in refusing to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. The trial judge evidently believed the story of the plaintiff and it was sufficient to sustain his action against Bella Schwartz.

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

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

Opinion by

Tr.exler, J.,

This was a suit in assumpsit on a book account against the defendants, Sam Schwartz and Bella Schwartz, tried by the judge without a jury. The only question that is properly before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of the judge in favor of the plaintiff. The testimony of the plaintiff which we must regard as verity discloses that during July and August, 1925, he engaged in the wholesale poultry business in Atlantic City and delivered poultry to Sam and Bella Schwartz which she paid for.

Formerly, in the early part of the season, Becker & Schwartz ran the business for a while, Becker guaranteeing the account. One day, Becker told the plaintiff that he would not guarantee the account any longer and the plaintiff then closed the account that stood in the name of Becker & Schwartz and entered it in the name of Bella & Sam Schwartz. The place was run as a butcher shop. Mrs. Schwartz was in constant attendance. The date when Schwartz took this business was July 20th and upon that day the new account was opened. The bills were rendered “Schwartz,” without indicating the first name. Mrs. Schwartz told the plaintiff that it was her business and said that she would be responsible for the bills and when asked to pay the bill, she said that she could not pay at that time, but if the plaintiff continued to give her credit, she would pay. The plaintiff had no dealing with Sam Schwartz. Sam deserted his wife sometime during the summer and the business was continued by her as usual.

This testimony shows that there was sufficient for the trial judge, sitting as judge and jury, to come to *170 the conclusion that the goods were furnished jointly to Sum and his wife and that she was a partner in the business. The lower court committed no error in refusing to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. The trial judge evidently believed the story of the plaintiff and it was sufficient to sustain his action against Bella Schwartz.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 Pa. Super. 168, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vineland-poultry-co-v-schwartz-pasuperct-1926.