Case ID: pa_197/html/0303-01.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

North v. Pantall.
    
      Practice, Stipreme Court—Appeals—Equity—Failure to file brief statement of errors.
    
    The Supreme Court will quash an appeal from a decree in equity, where the appellant has failed to file in the court below, with his notice of appeal, the brief statement of errors required by the equity rules.
    Argued Oct. 10, 1900.
    Appeal, No. 19, Oct. T., 1900, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Jefferson County, May T., 1896, No. 1, on bill in equity in case of S. T. North v. J. Reece Pan-
    tall and Irwin Simpson.
    Appeal quashed.
    Motion to quash appeal.
    The appellees moved the court to quash the appeal because there was no compliance with the following equity rule:
    “ Whenever an appeal shall be taken from an order or decree in equity the appellant shall file in the court below, with his notice of appeal, a brief statement of tbe errors he alleges to have been made by the order or decree appealed from, or the findings on which it rests. No other errors shall be assigned in the Supreme Court.”
    See 159 Pa. 28.
    
      Winslow Calderwood and Jenks 8f Corbet, for appellees.—
    Remarks in support of motion to quash. The rule has the force and effect of a positive enactment: Cassidy v. Knapp, 167 Pa. 305; Barlott v. Forney, 187 Pa. 301; Swoope v. Wakefield, 10 Pa. Superior Ct. 342; Wilson v. Keller, 195 Pa. 98.
    There is no ground for alleging mere “oversight” and absence of “special hardship” to appellees. Notice of appeal was given June 29, 1899. (The record so far as printed does not show that it was taken at all.) There has been ample time for observation, reflection and action, but nothing done. The rule was intended to inform the court below, advise the other party, and define the errors alleged to be considered in this court. The profession has been amply warned to observe it.
    The present instance has 'worked hardship to appellees in delay, uncertainty, deprivation of time for deliberation and preparation, and notice only at the very last moment of the assignment of errors alleged.
    October 10, 1900:
   Per Curiam,

Appeal quashed.