Opinion
October 15, 1929.
January 29, 1930.
Bailments — Contract — Embroidering coat linings — Trial by court without a jury — Finding of Court.
In an action of assumpsit to recover the contract price of embroidering fur coat linings, tried without a jury, both plaintiff and defendant agreed that the contract price was $1.50 per yard but differed as to whether the rate applied to the number of yards of lining, or to the number of yards of embroidery put upon the lining. The defendant offered to prove the prevailing market price for such work and that it would not have paid twice that price to the plaintiff for the same kind of work. The court, however, rejected the offer and found in favor of plaintiff, holding that the agreed price was $1.50 per lineal yard of embroidery:
Held: That where there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact by the court below it is final, like the verdict of a jury, and will not be reversed by the appellate court.
Appeal No. 80, October T., 1929, by defendant from judgment of M.C., Philadelphia County, June T., 1927, No. 894, in the case of United Embroidery Co. Inc. v. Jacob Gorin, trading as Pennsylvania Silk Mills.
Before PORTER, P.J., TREXLER, KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM and and BALDRIGE, JJ. Affirmed.
Assumpsit on contract to recover price of embroidering fur coat linings. Before CRANE, J., without a jury.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court found for plaintiff in the sum of $202.13 and entered judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the finding of the court.
Jos. A. Keough, and with him Julius C. Levi, for appellant. J. Finkelstein, and with him David S. Malis, for appellee.
Argued October 15, 1929.
Plaintiff has judgment in this suit for the contract price of embroidering fur-coat linings for defendant. The case was tried without a jury. Both sides agree that the contract price was $1.50 per yard but differ whether that rate was to be applied to the number of yards of lining or to the number of yards of embroidery put on the lining. Sixty yards of lining 40 inches wide were delivered by defendant to plaintiff and 120 yards of embroidery were put on the linings, that is, each yard of lining contained two yards of embroidery, one yard on each single-width of 20 inches. This dispute of fact was settled by the court below and as there is evidence to support the finding, it is final here, like the verdict of a jury. Appellant also complains of the following ruling:
"Q. What were the standard prices for that kind of work? (Objected to.) (Objection sustained.)
Mr. Keough: I offer that to show that if the prevailing market price was as witness would testify, it is not likely he would pay twice that price for the same kind of work.
The Court: Objection sustained.
(Exception noted for defendant.)"
The assignment is without merit. Appellant agrees that there was an express contract to pay $1.50 a yard; the question of fact was, a yard of what? The court believed plaintiff's evidence and not defendant's. While "much latitude must necessarily be allowed in the admission of corroborating testimony in such cases" (Hamilton v. Hastings, 172 Pa. 308), no reason appears for receiving the evidence offered in this case (Blank v. Shoemaker, 65 Pa. Super. 255; Seibert v. Householder, 8 Sadler 576), even if the form of the offer had not been defective, (Scott v. Lindgren, 97 Pa. Super. 483).
Judgment affirmed.