Commonwealth v. Howard
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 182, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Warren Co., March T., 1891, No. 49, quashing case stated. Assumpsit to recover penalties from the defendant, A. W. Howard, for unlawfully exercising the business of a real estate broker without a license.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 182, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Warren Co., March T., 1891, No. 49, quashing case stated. Assumpsit to recover penalties from the defendant, A. W. Howard, for unlawfully exercising the business of a real estate broker without a license. The case being at issue, a case stated was agreed upon as follows : “ The following facts are agreed upon by the parties to this suit, as in the nature of a special verdict, and to be submitted to the court for its judgment; each party reserving the right to appeal to the Supreme-Court. “ The defendant was engaged in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per. Curiam,
There was no final judgment in this case. The order of the court below was: “ Stated case is quashed, and new trial granted.” We are of opinion that the-case stated was properly quashed, for the reason that it failed to disclose facts necessary to an intelligent judgment. It ought to be understood that the court cannot go outside of the case stated for its facts, nor can it assume them by way of inference. The case stated having been quashed, the action in the court below stood precisely as if no case stated had been agreed upon.'
The judgment is affirmed, and a procedendo awarded.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Class & Nachod Brewing Co. v. GiacobelloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Wiest v. Mt. Lebanon School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co. v. HiteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Kelly v. Urban Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. v. MellonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.