Holmes et al. versus Wallace et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania1864-01-04

46 Pa. 266

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court reversed the judgment and awarded a venire de novo because the submitted case stated contained disputed facts rather than agreed facts, rendering it unsuitable for appellate review on legal grounds alone.

The court rejected the case stated submitted by the parties because it failed to meet the fundamental requirement that all facts be agreed upon before submission. A case stated must contain established facts, not disputed evidence or contested interpretations of what testimony proves. Here, the parties disagreed about what testimony was actually given, what those statements proved, whether certain documents were originals or copies, and whether evidence was properly included or omitted from the record.

The court noted that the plaintiff sought to preserve exceptions to the trial judge's evidentiary rulings while simultaneously converting the case into one stated on the evidence, creating potential unfairness. The defendant disputed material aspects of the presented testimony and challenged the factual premises underlying the plaintiff's legal arguments. Because the parties could not agree on the foundational facts, the court determined that a proper case stated was impossible to construct.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Requirements for a valid case stated
Whether disputed facts can be included in a case stated
Waiver of trial court exceptions through conversion to case stated
Treatment of conflicting evidence regarding documents and testimony

Procedural posture

The parties attempted to convert a trial record with conflicting testimony and evidentiary rulings into a case stated for appellate review of legal questions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, January 4th 1864, by

Thompson, J.

We must decline the task of settling the disputed facts in this case stated from the mass of testimony before us; or facts in any ease stated. It is essential to a case stated that the facts be agreed upon, so that the court may have nothing to do but pronounce the law arising out of them. It was said in Diehl v. Ihrie, 3 Whart. 143, “ It ought to be like a special verdict; to contain facts, and not the mere evidence of facts.” “It is like a special verdict:” Cook v. Shrauder, 1 Casey 312, and consequently should be certain.

We have nothing like that in this case. Here, after a large amount of testimony, pro and con, had been given, and some objection to the rulings, in regard to which there were several bills of exceptions on the minutes of the judge who tried the case; there is an entry, that the case is turned into a case stated on the evidence. Now, there was a great deal of evidence on both sides, but it is disputed as to what testimony really was given, and we have no certificate of the judge on our paper-books to enable us to decide the dispute as to what was given. So, too, the facts as to what the testimony does prove is almost wholly disputed. Further than this; the plaintiff in error claims the benefit of his exceptions to the ruling of the court in regard to testimony. He denies that he waived this when he assented to turning the testimony into a case stated, and we can easily see how the party might be injured if we were to hold that his counsel had actually waived his right of review as a consequence of his agreeing to the case stated. The defendant in error points out omissions in presenting all the evidence by the plaintiff in error, and as to other matters, presenting too much. I refer to their complaints as of an omission of part of the testimony of R. Woods, Esq., and to the excess in printing a list of judgments which they deny was ever given in evidence. So the plaintiffs in error treat certain deeds as originals, and make an argument on the fact that the defendants were estopped from denying the claimed effect of them, because the ancestor signed them, or signed one of them as a witness, but as they do not publish these deeds wo cannot tell, from the notes of testimony, whether they were original or not: while, on the other hand, the defendants in error deny the estoppel by denying that the signature of the subscribing witness was proved, and set forth the deeds on their paper-books, and call them copies. I suppose they meant that they were read from -the record, but that we can only surmise. Such an attempt to make a case stated with disputed facts has not been usual. It wants certainty of facts, and we cannot treat it at all as a case stated. It must go back for retrial, when, if the parties choose, they may make a proper case stated. But if they do not agree upon all the facts, the case must be disposed of as cases of disputed facts are ordinarily disposed of. As it would be a vain thing to send this case back to be properly restated, in view of the dispute about facts, we reverse the judg meat, and order a venire de novo therein, so that it may be tried in some orderly way.

Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.