Case Name: Porch Bros., Inc., v. Davis et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1920-12-31
Citations: 268 Pa. 378
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 176
Parties: Porch Bros., Inc., v. Davis et al., Appellants.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 268
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
Porch Bros., Inc., v. Davis et al., Appellants.
Appeals — Conflicting orders of lower court — Moot question.
Where the president judge of the lower court refused a rule to show cause why an execution should not be stayed, and on the same day the associate judge made an order staying the execution pending the perfecting of an appeal in equity proceedings raising the game question, and on the same day the president judge at chambers set aside the order of the associate judge, an appeal from the order of the president judge, in so doing, will be dismissed as raising but a moot question, where it appears that the equity proceedings were disposed of in the Supreme Court. The staying order of the associate judge expired by' its own limitation.
Argued September 28, 1920.
Appeal, No. 176, Oct. T., 1920, by defendants, from order of C. P. Cambria Co., Sept. T., 1920, No. 216, vacating a staying order in habere facias possessionem, Sept. T., 1920, No. 33, in case of Porch Bros., Inc., v. J. A. Davis and William Whitney, trading as “The Franklin.”
Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
Affirmed.
Proceedings vacating order staying writ of habere facias possessionem.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
The President Judge, Stephens, P. J., made an order vacating an order staying writ of habere facias possessionem. Defendants appealed.
Error assigned was order, quoting it.
William A. McGuire, for appellant.
Frank P. Barnhart, for appellee.
December 31, 1920:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Tbe bill which tbe appellants filed in tbe court below prayed for tbe same relief they ask for here in a petition to stay tbe writ of habere facias possessionem. That bill has this day been reinstated: see October Term, 1920, No. 148 [the preceding case]; and tbe refusal of a rule to show cause why tbe writ of execution should not be stayed was not error. Tbe same day tbe rule was refused by tbe president judge of tbe court bis colleague made an order staying tbe execution, pending "tbe making up and filing of tbe record in tbe equity case and until tbe complainants have had an opportunity to perfect their appeal from tbe decree entered to tbe Supreme Court." On the same day this staying order was set aside by tbe president judge of tbe court below, and this appellants allege was error, as be was without authority to do so at chambers. Tbe staying order of tbe associate judge has expired by its own limitation, as tbe appeal in tbe equity case has been disposed of. Tbe question of tbe authority of tbe president judge to set aside tbe staying order of bis colleague is, therefore, but a moot one.
Appeal dismissed at appellants' costs.