Notley's Petition
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 139, Oct. T., 1918, by William E. Schr'icker et al., from order of' C. P. Cambria Co., Dec. T., 1904, No. 539, making absolute rule for judgment for failure to bring ejectment In .re Petition of D. E. Notley. Rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered for failure to bring ejectment within six months. Before Stephens, P. J. The court made absolute the rule for judgment. Wm. E. Schricker et al., respondents, appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 139, Oct. T., 1918, by William E. Schr'icker et al., from order of' C. P. Cambria Co., Dec. T., 1904, No. 539, making absolute rule for judgment for failure to bring ejectment In .re Petition of D. E. Notley. Rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered for failure to bring ejectment within six months. Before Stephens, P. J. The court made absolute the rule for judgment. Wm. E. Schricker et al., respondents, appealed. Error assigned was the order of the court making absolute the rule. Where the proceeding is statutory and not according to the course of the common law,…
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart :
I would adhere to and enforce in this case the general rule that governs in cases of conflict between courts of concurrent jurisdiction. This rule is thus expressed and defined in Corpus Juris under the subtitle of “Courts,” page 1161, section 637: “Where a state and a federal court have concurrent jurisdiction over the same parties or privies and the same subject-matter, the tribunal where jurisdiction first attaches retains it exclusively, and will be left to determine the controversy and to fully perform and exhaust its jurisdiction and to decide…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gabler v. BlackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Taylor v. CarrylSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855