Case ID: pa-super_23/html/0652-01.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

Roush’s Estate.
    
      Appeals — Statement of question involved — Paper-books—Nos pros.
    
    Ail appeal will be non prossed where the appellant’s paper-book fails to contain a statement of the question involved as required by Rule 17.
    Submitted Oct. 28, 1903.
    December 19, 1903 :
    Appeal, No. 207, Oct. T., 1903, by Cora Roush Graffius, from decree of O. C. Blair Co., No. 7, O. C. 1898, Partition Docket, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report.
    Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orladt, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.
    Appeal non prossed.
    Exceptions to report of A. V. Dively, Esq., auditor.
    The paper-book on appeal contained no statement of the questions involved.
    
      Errors assigned were in dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report.
    
      II. Price G-raffius, for appellant.
    
      Charles Gf-eeseg, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

Rule 17 of this court, which imperatively required that the appellant should state distinctly, and under a separate head, the questions involved, was wholly ignored in the preparation of her paper-book. No attempt to comply with it, and no explanation of the omission, coupled with an offer to cure the defect, was made. There never was a plainer case for the enforcement of the rule, and fortunately, an examination of the assignments of error in the light of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that no injustice will result from its enforcement.

The appellant’s paper-book is suppressed and her appeal non prossed because of her failure to comply with Rule 17.