Court Opinion

ID: 9713811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:22:54.086719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.675971
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Wright, P. J.:
Appellant’s appeal, and an appeal bond of $15,-804.00, were filed with the prothonotary of the trial court well within the twenty-day statutory period. This bond was conditioned, upon failure in the appeal, for the payment of all costs. Appellant also forwarded a bank draft for the amount of costs shown by the docket to be due. Under these circumstances, to affirm the quashing of the appeal seems unduly harsh and inequitable. See my dissenting opinion in Fleisher v. Kaufman, 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 378, 212 A. 2d 846.
The law favors the right of appeal: Womelsdorf v. Heifner, 104 Pa. 1; Romberger Appeal, 190 Pa. Superior Ct. 11, 151 A. 2d 805. Indeed, the constitutionality of the Compulsory Arbitration Statute depends upon the existence of the right of appeal: Smith Case, 381 Pa. 223, 112 A. 2d 625. In its memorandum opinion the trial court mentions the contention of counsel for appellee that the bank draft was not legal tender. However, in Burns v. Smith, 180 Pa. 606, 37 A. 105, our Supreme Court reversed the quashing of an appeal on this basis. See also Trexler v. Africa, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 385.
I would reverse the order below and reinstate the appeal.