Beatty v. State Board of Undertakers
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Jones:
The opinion of the Court states that “In the present case neither the jurisdiction nor the regularity of the proceedings is challenged.” As I understood the oral argument of appellant’s counsel and read his brief, his entire attack consists of his contention that the statute under which the State Board of Undertakers operates confers no jurisdiction on the Board to enter an order such as the one which gave rise to the proceeding now under review. As I agree with the appellant’s contention, I have no alternative but to dissent from the action of the Court.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Trainer v. WolfeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Commonwealth v. KrickbaumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901