Commonwealth v. Reiser
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 69, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, the Commonwealth, for the use of Philadelphia County and Eastburn Reeder, agent of the Dairymen’s National Protective Association, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1891, No. 1081, making absolute a rule for an appeal nunc pro tunc from a magistrate. Appeal nunc pro tunc from the judgment of a magistrate. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 69, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, the Commonwealth, for the use of Philadelphia County and Eastburn Reeder, agent of the Dairymen’s National Protective Association, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1891, No. 1081, making absolute a rule for an appeal nunc pro tunc from a magistrate. Appeal nunc pro tunc from the judgment of a magistrate. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was the allowance of the appeal nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court cannot review the order of the common pleas, allowing the appeal nunc pro tunc. Building Asso. v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The only specification of error is, that the court below erred in allowing an appeal nunc pro tunc. A suit had been commenced against the defendant before the magistrate of court No. 9, of the city of Philadelphia, to recover the penalty of $100 prescribed by the act of 1885, for the sale of oleomargarine. The magistrate gave judgment for the commonwealth on July 6, 1891. On Aug. 4, 1891, the court below granted a rule for an appeal nunc pro tunc, which rule was subsequently made absolute. We do not think an appeal lies to this court in such cases, and we can only consider this…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Koch Election Contest CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Yost v. DavisonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897