Basalyga v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Basalyga v. Commonwealth

283 A.2d 504, 3 Pa. Commw. 392, 1971 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 362

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 9, 1971

DocketAppeals, Nos. 500 C.D. 1971 and 501 C.D. 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.2d 504 (Basalyga v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Basalyga v. Commonwealth, 283 A.2d 504, 3 Pa. Commw. 392, 1971 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 362 (Pa. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

These appeals challenge an Eminent Domain award by the Common Pleas Court of Lackawanna County to Scientific Living, Inc. for the taking of certain corporate lands by the Pennsylvania Department of Highways. Prior to trial, a receiver was appointed by the court below to represent all interests in Scientific Living, Inc. because ownership and control of the corporation was disputed. Pour individuals involved in the ownership dispute have filed these appeals, in their own names as well as in the name of the corporation, [394]*394alleging error in that they were wrongly denied the opportunity to participate in the trial. We hold that since the lower court had appointed a receiver and he did participate in the trial as the representative of all interests in the condemned land, only he may appeal the decision of the court below. Spires v. Hanover Fire Insurance Co., 364 Pa. 52, 70 A. 2d 828 (1950) ; Continental Bank & Trust Company v. American Assembly Machine Co., 350 Pa. 300, 38 A. 2d 220 (1944). Appellants remedy, if any exists, rests in the challenge of the appointment of the receiver to represent their interests. Here is where the appropriate appeal would lie. Yorks v. Altmiller, 270 Pa. 438, 113 A. 415 (1921). The order appointing the receiver is valid and cannot be ignored absent a successful appeal of the same.

Dismissed.

Judge Manderino concurs in decision only.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

Per Curiam,

These appeals challenge an Eminent Domain award by the Common Pleas Court of Lackawanna County to Scientific Living, Inc. for the taking of certain corporate lands by the Pennsylvania Department of Highways. Prior to trial, a receiver was appointed by the court below to represent all interests in Scientific Living, Inc. because ownership and control of the corporation was disputed. Pour individuals involved in the ownership dispute have filed these appeals, in their own names as well as in the name of the corporation, [394]*394alleging error in that they were wrongly denied the opportunity to participate in the trial. We hold that since the lower court had appointed a receiver and he did participate in the trial as the representative of all interests in the condemned land, only he may appeal the decision of the court below. Spires v. Hanover Fire Insurance Co., 364 Pa. 52, 70 A. 2d 828 (1950) ; Continental Bank & Trust Company v. American Assembly Machine Co., 350 Pa. 300, 38 A. 2d 220 (1944). Appellants remedy, if any exists, rests in the challenge of the appointment of the receiver to represent their interests. Here is where the appropriate appeal would lie. Yorks v. Altmiller, 270 Pa. 438, 113 A. 415 (1921). The order appointing the receiver is valid and cannot be ignored absent a successful appeal of the same.

Dismissed.

Judge Manderino concurs in decision only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.2d 504, 3 Pa. Commw. 392, 1971 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basalyga-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack