Opinion
October 3, 1934.
October 31, 1934.
Negligence — Automobile — Street intersection — Collision — Trial before judge sitting without a jury — Findings — Conclusiveness — Act of April 22, 1874, P.L. 109.
Where an action of trespass, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision between two automobiles at a street intersection, is tried before a judge sitting without a jury, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of April 22, 1874, P.L. 109, a judgment entered on findings for the plaintiff will be sustained if there is competent evidence to sustain them.
Appeal No. 245, October T., 1934, by defendant from judgment of C.P., No. 5, Philadelphia County, September T., 1929, No. 10404, in the case of Francis Graham, Jr. v. E.F. Houghton Company.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER and JAMES, JJ. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before STERN, P.J., sitting without a jury.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Findings for the plaintiff in the sum of $350 and judgment entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the entry of the judgment.
Wayland H. Elsbree of White, Schnader, Maris Clapp, for appellant. Ralph B. Umsted, and with him Benjamin R. Simons, for appellee.
Argued October 3, 1934.
The action below was trespass to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff in a right angle collision, at the intersection of Oxford and Twenty-fifth Streets, Philadelphia, between the automobile plaintiff was driving east on Oxford and one owned by defendant and then being driven north on Twenty-fifth by one of its servants.
The case was tried, under the provisions of the Act of April 22, 1874, P.L. 109, before STERN, P.J., who entered the following findings of fact and conclusion of law: "1. The defendant was negligent and thereby caused the accident. 2. The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. 3. The plaintiff suffered damages in the sum of $350," and "1. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $350 from the defendant."
Defendant's exceptions were dismissed and this appeal followed. No questions of law are involved. As in most cases of this type, the testimony was not free from conflict. Our examination of the record discloses ample competent evidence supporting the findings of the trial judge and the assignments must, therefore, be overruled.
Judgment affirmed.