Case Name: Roush's Estate
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1903-12-19
Citations: 23 Pa. Super. 652
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 207
Parties: Roush’s Estate.
Judges: Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orladt, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.