Commonwealth v. Scholl
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Keller, P. J.,
We. think this appeal is governed in principle, and ruled against the appellant, by our decision in Com. v. MacMaster, 88 Pa. Superior Ct. 37. We there said, speaking through Judge Porter, “The court of common pleas had never made an order providing for the payment of alimony pendente lite. Even if ü had, that action would not have deprived the court below 1 of jurisdiction to prevent the wife becoming a public charge; both orders might have run concurrently during the pendency of the proceedings: Heilbron v. Heilbron, 158 Pa. [297], 301,” [27 A. 967, 968]. (Italics…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Heilbron v. HeilbronSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Rutherford v. RutherfordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Commonwealth v. MacMasterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Mays' EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Ponthus v. PonthusSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Jack v. JackSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bessie N. Rankin. Robert L. Rankin v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
- Belsky v. BelskySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Commonwealth ex rel. Reddick v. ReddickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Keller v. KellerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.