No. 1084 April Term, 1978, Appeal from Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Civil Action-Law, No. 2327 of 1975.
E. David Harr, Greensburg, for appellants.
Ronald J. Bergman, Greensburg, for appellee.
Price, Hester and Montgomery, JJ.
[ 271 Pa. Super. Page 481]
Presently before the court is appellants' appeal from the order of the lower court en banc dismissing exceptions taken from a non-jury verdict entered in favor of appellee.
It is firmly established that our scope of review is such that we cannot reverse a lower court's findings of fact in a non-jury trial unless it appears clearly and convincingly from the record that the evidence cannot support said findings. The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania v. Cruice, 178 Pa. Super. 308, 116 A.2d 355 (1955); Allen v. Insurance Company of North America, 175 Pa. Super. 281, 104 A.2d 191 (1954); Hydro-Flex, Inc. v. Alter Bolt Company, Inc., 223 Pa. Super. 228, 296 A.2d 874 (1972). We reiterate that the law of the Commonwealth is such that the findings of fact of a trial court, sitting without a jury, approved by a court en banc, are entitled to full force and weight of a jury verdict; and that such findings should not be disturbed unless it appears that the trial court abused its discretion or that its findings lacked evidentiary support. The reasoning for this rule is set forth in Hydro-Flex, Inc. (supra):
[ 271 Pa. Super. Page 482]
"The granting of a new trial on the grounds that the findings of the trial judge were against the weight of the evidence is for the trial judge, and such a determination should not be reversed on appeal unless there has been a clear and palpable abuse of discretion. Bell Telephone Co. v. Cruice, 178 Pa. Super. 308, 116 A.2d 355 (1955); Beitch v. Mishkin, 184 Pa. Super. 120, 132 A.2d 703 (1957). In the instant case, the judge was in a position to hear the conflicting evidence and to evaluate the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses. Indeed, the entire case turns on a question of credibility and a 'resolution of conflicting testimony.' In such a case, the findings of the trial judge where supported by the record should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of manifest error. Scientific Living Page 482} v. Hohensee, 440 Pa. 280, 270 A.2d 216 (1968); Drummond v. Drummond, 414 Pa. 548, 200 A.2d 887 (1964). This is especially true where the trial judge's findings have been approved by a court en banc. Selway v. Selway, 426 Pa. 224, 231 A.2d 872 (1967); Craft Reupholstering Co. v. Rosenberg, 420 Pa. 43, 216 A.2d 49 (1966)."
The facts in the instant case may be briefly summarized as follows: Appellants brought this action in assumpsit to recover $2,703.00, with interest from December 31, 1974, which sum allegedly represented the total amount paid appellee through his agent, servant, employee or salesman pursuant to an oral contract with said purported agent, servant, employee or salesman for the purchase of a 1974 Saab automobile. The first payment by check under date of December 30, 1974 was made payable to appellee; the balance of $2,200.00 by check dated December 31, 1974 was made payable directly to Charles D. Demangone, appellee's purported agent, servant, employee or salesman. Contrariwise, appellee contended that no oral agreement ever existed between appellants (through their son acting as their agent) and appellee (with the said Charles D. Demangone acting as appellee's agent); that the first check above referred to in the amount of $503.00 was properly applied by appellee in its normal course of business on account of the purchase of a totally different automobile, and the second check in the amount of $2,200.00 and payable to the said Charles D. Demangone directly, was tendered to him by appellee's son as a personal loan to satisfy certain gambling debts.
With respect to the $503.00 check, Mrs. Magdalene Volk, appellee's head bookkeeper for eight years, testified that:
"Mr. Demangone told us that he sold the Plymouth to this Mr. Brown and that Mr. Firestone (appellants' son) owed him money, and the difference were going to be applied what Mr. ...