Commonwealth v. Mackey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 5, Oct. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Blair Co., Oct. T., 1906, No. 23, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Commonwealth v. E. M. Mackey. Indictment for violating the pure food law.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 5, Oct. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Blair Co., Oct. T., 1906, No. 23, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Commonwealth v. E. M. Mackey. Indictment for violating the pure food law. The defendant pleaded nollo contendere upon which judgment of sentence was passed. ¡Errors assigned were as follows : 1. Does the plea of nollo contendere entered by the defendant preclude him from taking an appeal ?■ 2. Is the selling and having for sale, adulterated candy, prohibited by the Act of June 27, 1895, P. L. 817 entitled, “ an act to provide against the adulteration of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The assignments of error are an essential part of the pleadings in this court, and it has been declared repeatedly that they should be so complete in themselves as not to require reference to other parts of the record. There are many reasons for this requirement, but the one that is most commonly given in the reported cases is, that when an appeal is disposed of and the record remitted to the court below the praecipe, assignments of error and plea thereto are all the papers that usually remain of record in the appellate court as the basis of its judgment or decree, as the case may…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. DonahueSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Rahm's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Kalincsak v. Russian Orthodox Catholic Mutual Aid SocietySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917