Case ID: pa-super_9/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "William W. Porter, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Estate of Herman M. Dorscheimer, deceased. Appeal of Matilda B. Dorscheimer.
    
      Appeals — Failure to enter formal decree fatal.
    
    Where the orphans’court ordei-s a decree to be modified, along lines indicated by the opinion, but no such decree appears to have been entered, the omission to prepare and secure the entry of the decree, as directed, is fatal to an appeal taken. The appellate court, even though it may infer from the opinion the character of the decree intended cannot either affirm or reverse a decree which has never in fact been entered.
    Argued Dec. 15, 1898.
    Appeal, No. 182, Oct. T., 1898, by Matilda B. Dorscheimer, in the matter of petition to vacate a decree of O. C. Phila. Co., April T., 1898, No. 371.
    Before Rice, P. J., 0ready, W. W. Porter and W. D. Porter, JJ.
    Appeal quashed.
    Petition to vacate decree. Before the court in banc.
    It appears from the record that Matilda B. Dorscheimer, widow of decedent, had filed a petition for $300 cash out of decedent’s estate which exemption had been allowed by the court. Subsequently a petition was filed to vacate the decree and the court filed an opinion which concluded in these words : “We must therefore modify the decree made June 18, 1898, and oounsel will prepare a proper decree.” The full opinion is reported in 7 Dist. Rep. 726. A petition for rehearing and modification of this decree directed to be made was subsequently filed by the widow which was dismissed by the court. No formal decree was prepared or filed in obedience to the opinion of the orphans’ court. The widow subsequently took this appeal.
    
      Errors assigned were to the action of tbe court “ in modifying the decree,” setting forth the particular words complained of, and (5) in refusing a rehearing of the case and dismissing the widow’s petition.
    February 17, 1899:
    
      Alfred N. Heim, with him Gr. Harry Davis, for appellant.
    
      James R. Gtrier, for appellee.
   Opinion by

William W. Porter, J.,

The paper-book of the appellant states that “the present case is an appeal by the widow from a decreé of the orphans ’ count of Philadelphia county, modifying a former decree of the same court allowing her a cash exemption of 1300.” We find that a petition for modification was presented. To this an answer was filed by the widow. We are furnished also with an opinion of the orphans ’ court, which expresses the views of that court in regard to the necessity for a modification of the original decree. The opinion concludes : “We must therefore modify the decree made July 18, 1898, and counsel will prepare the proper decree.” No decree, however, appears to have been entered. Subsequently, a petition for a rehearing was presented by the widow. This application was refused.

The omission to prepare and secure the entry of a decree is fatal to this appeal. While we may infer from the opinion the character of the decree directed to be prepared, we cannot as an appellate court either affirm or reverse a decree which has in fact never been entered.

Under these circumstances, we are compelled to quash the appeal.

Appeal quashed.