Fox v. Cohen
Fox v. Cohen
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The assignments of error are not in accordance with the rules of court and this appeal should be quashed. We have, however, considered the case on its merits and have concluded that the judgment of the court below was properly founded. The appellant does not deny that it owes the plaintiff the amount sued for, but contends that there is a variance between the plaintiff’s statement and his proof. No exception was taken to the order amending the form of action and it .was not error for the court below to allow such amendment. No exception was taken to any supposed variance as required by our many decisions. It cannot be taken advantage of on a point for binding direction: Ward v. Mfg. Co., 247 Pa. 277.
We have, however, examined the testimony and find no material variance.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Appeals — Assignments of error — Violation of rules. ' Mere general assignments of error which do not set forth or quote any decree, order, or ruling, are not in accordance with the rules of court. Practice, O. P. — Amendment—Form of action — Variance—Exceptions. Where a writ has been issued in assumpsit and the statement is in trespass, the court may permit the form of action to be amended so as to conform to the statement. Where no exception has been taken in the court below to an alleged variance between the statement of claim and the proof, the appellate court will not consider the question on appeal.