Court Opinion

ID: 9635529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:53:16.720971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:29.343065
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice,
dissenting.
Unlike my brethren, I find that the question whether the court of common pleas erred in appointing a temporary receiver,1 with control over the business interests of appellants, is moot. The record as it has been supplemented discloses that the temporary receivership has been terminated since the appeal was taken. That termination appears to have been part of a settlement of various matters in dispute between the parties. On September 18, 1975 an order of court was entered whereby appellants confessed judgment in a replevin action against them by the appellee herein, and on the following day, September 19, 1975, a consent order was entered terminating the temporary receivership and discharging the receiver in light of the replevin judgment. The record shows, moreover, that the settlement which was thus consummated was initially proposed by the appellants themselves.
*65We have often said that moot questions will be considered on appeal “only in rare instances where exceptional circumstances exist or where questions of great public importance are involved.” Conti v. Department of Labor and Industry, 405 Pa. 309, 310-311, 175 A.2d 56, 57 (1961). Accord: Manganese Steel Forge Co. v. Commonwealth, 421 Pa. 67, 218 A.2d 307 (1966); Schuster v. Gilberton Coal Co., 412 Pa. 353, 194 A.2d 346 (1963); Ridley Park Shopping Center, Inc. v. Sun Ray Drug Co., 407 Pa. 230, 180 A.2d 1 (1962); Wortex Mills v. Textile Workers Union of America, 369 Pa. 359, 85 A.2d 851 (1952). See also Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975). I am satisfied that such is not the case here, and that on this record there is no occasion for the court to determine whether or not the receiver was improperly appointed.

. See Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1533, 42 Pa.C.S.A.