Case ID: pa-super_42/html/0593-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Trimble, Appellant, v. Reserve Township.
    
      Appeals — Record—Evidence—Taxation of costs.
    
    An order of the common pleas dismissing exceptions to the prothonotary’s retaxation of costs will be affirmed unless the record exhibits an error of law in the conclusions reached or irregularity of procedure. As the evidence is not brought up with the record, matters of fact cannot be considered.
    Argued April 14, 1910.
    Appeal, No. 47, April T., 1910, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1909, No. 907, dismissing exceptions to taxation of costs in suit of John G. Trimble v. Reserve Township.
    Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Head, Beaver and Porter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Exceptions to taxation of costs.
    
      Error assigned was in dismissing the -exceptions.
    
      F. C. Whitesell, of Whitesell Bros., for appellant.
    
      J. L. Ritchey, with him A. B. Angney, for appellee.
    May 12, 1910:
   Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from an order of the Common Pleas dismissing exceptions tó the'prothonotary’s retaxation of costs. Unless the record brought up on such appeal exhibits error of law in the conclusions reached or irregularity of procedure, the adjudication will not be disturbed: Hartley v. Weideman, 28 Pa. Superior Ct. 50, and cases there cited. As was there said, if the adjudication relates to the number and materiality of the witnesses in attendance, the length of time they were in attendance, the number of miles traveled by them or by the officer or other person serving the subpoena, or the number of days arbitrators were engaged in the performance of their duties, and similar matters of fact, it is ordinarily conclusive and not reviewable on appeal, for the obvious reason that the evidence upon which it was based is not brought up with the record. There is nothing in this case to take it out of the general rule. Finding no error of law or irregularity of procedure in the record, the order is affirmed at the costs of the appellant.