Opinion
March 27, 1953.
May 25, 1953.
Equity — Practice — Findings of fact — Necessity — Appellate review — Remanding record.
In a suit in equity for an accounting, in which plaintiff alleged an oral agreement of partnership, which defendant denied, and in which the evidence was conflicting; and where it appeared that the chancellor without making findings of fact had merely concluded that there was no evidence justifying the existence of a partnership and dismissed the bill; it was Held that the record should be returned for specific fact-findings.
Before STERN, C. J., STEARNE, JONES, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 31, March T., 1953, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1950, in Equity, No. 2571, in case of Walter Pawlish v. Stephen Pawlish. Record remanded.
Proceeding upon amended bill in equity. Before MARSHALL, J.
Adjudication filed finding for defendant; exceptions to adjudication dismissed and final decree of dismissal entered. Plaintiff appealed.
William W. Matson, for appellant.
Francis Taptich, with him R. J. Lucksha, for appellee.
The plaintiff in this case filed a bill in equity averring that he and the defendant had engaged in a building enterprise under an oral agreement of partnership, and praying for an accounting by the defendant. The defendant filed an answer denying the existence of any partnership and alleging that the plaintiff had no interest whatsoever in the enterprise. After hearing, the chancellor adjudicated the controversy in favor of the defendant and entered a decree nisi dismissing the bill. Exceptions thereto were dismissed by the court en banc, and this appeal followed.
We are unable to pass upon the merits of the appeal because of the failure of the chancellor to make findings of fact. The only findings made are conclusions that there was no evidence justifying the existence of a partnership or the directing of an accounting. The record discloses material conflict in the testimony adduced by the respective parties and required specific findings with respect thereto for proper review of the chancellor's conclusions, both by the court en banc and this Court. Since the record must be returned for further findings, it is suggested that in aid of the chancellor the parties file requests for specific findings pertinent to their respective contentions.
The record is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.