Court Opinion

ID: 9717324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:01:44.511726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:52.572839
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority in affirming the order of the Superior Court but I dissent from the balance of the opinion commencing with the first full paragraph on page 394 (opinion) and continuing to the end. The discussion of whether Appellant has an absolute right to subrogation is, in my view, irrelevant to the issue before us.
As the majority states:
We granted Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal to review the order of the Superior Court affirming the order and judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County which had denied the Appellant’s Petition to Set Aside or Strike Satisfaction of Judgment and to Mark Judgment to the Use of Allis-Chalmers (hereinafter Petitioner), (op. 394)
The only issue before us is whether Common Pleas properly denied Appellant’s Petition. The majority has quickly resolved this issue by correctly pointing out that the “procedure utilized by the Appellant to protect its right” (op. 394) *409was incorrect. “On the face of the judgment and record facts there is no reason to strike the satisfaction____ Thus, the procedure utilized by Appellant was inappropriate.” (op. 395).
Having properly disposed of the sole issue before us, I believe it is inappropriate for the majority to discuss subrogation rights and methods of enforcing same. Accordingly, I dissent from the inclusion of this material as being pure dicta.