Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
HOOPES BROS. & THOMAS CO. v. TROWER, 1933 — 63 F.2d 259 · caselaw · US
General
HOOPES BROS. & THOMAS CO. v. TROWER
63 F.2d 259·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1933
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
HOOPES BROS. & THOMAS CO. v. TROWER.
No. 4957.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Feb. 2, 1933.
Algernon R. Clapp and White, Schnader, Maris & Clapp, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Robert F. Irwin, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., Benjamin W. Mears, of Eastville, Va., and Frank R. Donahue and John B. Gest, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This was a suit for damages sustained by William B. Trower, the plaintiff in a collision between bis automobile and the defendant’s truck. Tbe case was submitted to the jury in a charge to whieh no objection was or is now made.
The sole question here involved is whether the court erred in refusing to strike out the plaintiff’s testimony that his net income for the three years preceding the accident was $2500 per year. Cross-examination disclosed the plaintiff’s income came from his practice as a country physician and from the proceeds of his farm. He kept no books. He sold all his farm produce to a produce exchange, which kept account of all such produce. Ho deposited his money in hank, and paid his bills by check. From these two sources he figured his income. He- did not have the bank book or the produce exchange accounts at the trial, and the defendant did not call for their production, nor since the trial has it made any effort to procure an examination of these accounts or to discredit the plaintiff’s statement that from them he had rightly determined his net income.
Finding no error, the judgment below is affirmed.