¶1This was an action of assumpsit tried by a judge of the Superior Court without the intervention of a jury. Ho propositions of law were submitted, and the contention here is that the finding was not warranted by the evidence. •
¶2We see no sufficient reason for interfering with the conclusions of the court in this regard; nor do we think that the controversy was one as to which the parties should have been remitted to a court of chancery.
¶3Appellant insists that it is impossible to arrive from the evidence at the sum found by the court. We do not know upon what theory the court proceeded, but a fair statement of the evidence as to appellee’s claim would seem to be:
J of 645 cars at 50 cents each............$161 25
J- of 75 cars at $4.00 each................ 150 00
J of extra work........................ 10 00
$321 25
Deduct one-half of $35 for extra help.-.............$17 50
Deduct for board................................ 9 00
$26 50
$321 25
26 50
$294 75
¶4The finding was' for $295.25. De minimis non etirat lex.
¶5The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
¶6Judgment affirmed.