Case ID: pa_135/html/0184-01.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

M. L. KREINER v. ROCHESTER ETC. R. CO.
    APPEAL BY DEPENDANT PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP BRADPORD COUNTY.
    Argued May 6, 1890
    Decided May 19, 1890.
    An assignment of error to a refusal by the court below to admit in evidence an exemplification of a record, not setting out the record in compliance with Rule XXIV. of the Supreme Court, will not be considered.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Green, Clark, Williams and Mc-Collum, JJ.
    No. 78 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 13 December Term 1884, C. P.
    On October 6,1884, an appeal was entered in the court below from the judgment of James W. Shaw, recorder of the city of Bradford, in favor of Mary L. Kreiner, by her next friend P. Kearns, against the Rochester and Pittsburgh Railroad Company, for $103.25, the value of a valise and contents. A special plea was filed by the defendant “ that the plaintiff ought not to have judgment in this case, for the reason that the appeal upon which the action is founded is from the judgment of the court of the city recorder of the city of Bradford, which court was illegal and its acts and judgments invalid, the said court being without legal existence, and therefore this court has no jurisdiction; wherefore,” etc.
    At the trial on September 10, 1889, before Morrtson, J., the plaintiff having rested, counsel for defendant offered in evidence “an exemplified copy of the record in and for the county of Dauphin, No. 17 November Term 1886, to wit, the Commonwealth ex relatione the Attorney General v. J. W. Shaw, for the purpose of showing that the court from which this appeal was taken and in which this suit was commenced has been declared unconstitutional, and judgment of ouster entered.”
    Objected to, as incompetent and irrelevant.
    By the court: Objection sustained, offer refused; exception.1
    The case was submitted to the jury who returned a verdict for plaintiff for $134.33. Judgment having been entered, the defendant took this appeal assigning for error: The refusal of defendant’s offer.1
    
      Mr. Q. II. McCauley (with him Mr. Ceorge A. Berry), for the appellant.
    Counsel cited: Act of March 24, 1877, P. L. 47; act of May 1, 1879, P. L. 44; act of February 14, 1881, P. L. 6; Ayars’ App., 122 Pa. 266.
    
      Mr. Eugene Miller, for the appellee, filed no printed brief.
   Per Curiam :

The only assignment of error is to the rejection of the certified copy of the record, No. 17 November Term 1886, of the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. No copy of this record was printed in connection with the assignment, nor does it appear elsewhere in the paper-books. It is almost needless to say that we cannot pass upon the legal effect of a record we have never seen. Had the assignment been in conformity to the "Rule of Court, (see Rule XXIV.,) we could have considered it. As there is nothing else in the case, the judgment must be

Affirmed.