M'Connel v. Morton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Allegheny. Sept. 5. William Morton brought suit against the administrators of his father, for work done for the decedent in his lifetime. He arbitrated the case, and obtained an award for $1,000, from which defendants ■ appealed, in person, without making oath or affirmation that it was not for the purpose of delay, &c., &c. The prothonotary did not require the oath.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Allegheny. Sept. 5. William Morton brought suit against the administrators of his father, for work done for the decedent in his lifetime. He arbitrated the case, and obtained an award for $1,000, from which defendants ■ appealed, in person, without making oath or affirmation that it was not for the purpose of delay, &c., &c. The prothonotary did not require the oath. The plaintiff took a rule to dismiss the appeal, which rule, on the ground of the want of the affidavit, was made absolute. The dismissing of this appeal was assigned for error.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of this court was delivered by
Coulter, J.
Either party may appeal from the award of arbitrators under certain restrictions and limitations, one of which is, that the party appellant, his agent or attorney, shall make oa.th or affirmation, that it is not for the purpose of delay such appeal is entered, but because he firmly believes injustice has been done.
The policy of the law is to prevent frivolous appeals entered in caprice or under the excitement of passion. The rule embraces all parties litigant; but there is an exception in the 31st section of the act 1836, in favour of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Drozdowski v. Keystone Truck Leasing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Butler E. & F. Co. v. Butler BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Noyes v. BrooksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896