Snyder v. Bauchman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error, BAUGHMAN and others, the defendants in error, hav- . ■ . ? Mg purchased certain real estate in Lancaster county, as the óf George Snyder, at Sheriff’s.sale, instituted proceedings under the Act of Assembly, passed the 6th of w 4. “ Because the Court of Common Pleas applied two of their rules to this case, when removed by certiorari into the said Court, which had neither relation to, nor bearing upon, the subject, and which, if they had, would be illegal and…
Read the full summary
In Error, BAUGHMAN and others, the defendants in error, hav- . ■ . ? Mg purchased certain real estate in Lancaster county, as the óf George Snyder, at Sheriff’s.sale, instituted proceedings under the Act of Assembly, passed the 6th of w 4. “ Because the Court of Common Pleas applied two of their rules to this case, when removed by certiorari into the said Court, which had neither relation to, nor bearing upon, the subject, and which, if they had, would be illegal and unconstitutional ; and, under the supposed obligation of these rules, declined hearing the merits of the case, and affirmed the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Duncan J.
'The defendants in error, or rather the respondents, have made a preliminary question, the decision of which, renders it unnecessary to give any opinion on the reasons assigned for quashing the proceedings. The objection is founded on a rule of Court of this Judicial District. [His Honour here read the rules.] If the authority of the Court was competent to make such rule, and if it embraces this case, we will not disturb the judgment of affirmance. Every Court of record has an inherent power to make rules for the transaction of its business,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barry v. RandolphSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1810
3Cited by1 opinion
- Com. v. Stultz, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015