McMellen v. Williamson
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 194, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff!, from decree of C. P. Lancaster Co., Equity Docket No. 4, p. 261, dismissing bill in equity in case of Ellias McMellen v. H. S. Williamson. Motion to quash appeal. The motion to quash the appeal was based on the ground that the appellant had not complied with Rule 92 of the equity rules, requiring the appellant to file in the court below a brief statement of error alleged to have been made by the decree appealed from.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 194, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff!, from decree of C. P. Lancaster Co., Equity Docket No. 4, p. 261, dismissing bill in equity in case of Ellias McMellen v. H. S. Williamson. Motion to quash appeal. The motion to quash the appeal was based on the ground that the appellant had not complied with Rule 92 of the equity rules, requiring the appellant to file in the court below a brief statement of error alleged to have been made by the decree appealed from. The appellant’s book under the title of “ questions involved ” showed six numbered paragraphs containing in the aggregate…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
It was decided in Barlott v. Forney, 187 Pa. 301, that the Act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67, relating to appeals, did not abrogate the equity rule which provides that “ the appellant shall file in the court below, with his notice of appeal, a brief *264statement of the errors he alleges to have been made by the order or decree appealed from,” etc. But it was said in the same case, and our ruling in Swoope v. Wakefield, 10 Pa. Superior Ct. 342 was to the same effect: “ This default, however, is not necessarily fatal to the appeal, and in case of mere oversight of counsel, and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Barlott v. ForneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Hinnershitz v. United Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Creachen v. Bromley Bros. Carpet Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Wilson v. KellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Shamokin & Coal Township Light & Power Co. v. JohnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Penn Furniture Co. v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Dresser & Pringle v. Williams, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, McKean County1922
- Kalincsak v. Russian Orthodox Catholic Mutual Aid SocietySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917