Bryant v. Bryant

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Bryant v. Bryant

82 Pa. D. & C. 461, 1952 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 116

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedMay 29, 1952

DocketNo.6; no. 2903

StatusPublished

This text of 82 Pa. D. & C. 461 (Bryant v. Bryant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bryant v. Bryant, 82 Pa. D. & C. 461, 1952 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 116 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Bok, P. J.,

On July 10, 1951, this court granted a final decree in divorce. On October 10, 1951, defendant appealed to the Superior Court, but as the appeal was not prosecuted, the Superior Court entered a judgment of non pros on April 16, 1952, and remitted the record. On May 5,1952, plaintiff filed her petition for additional counsel fees and expenses.

While we are sympathetic to the obvious suggestion that the appeal was dilatory, we are forced to hold that the current petition was filed too late. The authorities are collected in Baumhauer v. Baumhauer, 44 D. & C. 565 (1942), which squarely decides the point.

It is otherwise when such a petition is pending at the time of final disposition or when it is filed after final decree but pending appeal. The remission of the record is pro forma only: the record has to be somewhere, and it is always remitted to the court of first instance after final disposition of an appeal. The conclusion of this appeal leaves the record as it was before, with the final decree as the last act.

The petition is dismissed.

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

Bok, P. J.,

On July 10, 1951, this court granted a final decree in divorce. On October 10, 1951, defendant appealed to the Superior Court, but as the appeal was not prosecuted, the Superior Court entered a judgment of non pros on April 16, 1952, and remitted the record. On May 5,1952, plaintiff filed her petition for additional counsel fees and expenses.

While we are sympathetic to the obvious suggestion that the appeal was dilatory, we are forced to hold that the current petition was filed too late. The authorities are collected in Baumhauer v. Baumhauer, 44 D. & C. 565 (1942), which squarely decides the point.

It is otherwise when such a petition is pending at the time of final disposition or when it is filed after final decree but pending appeal. The remission of the record is pro forma only: the record has to be somewhere, and it is always remitted to the court of first instance after final disposition of an appeal. The conclusion of this appeal leaves the record as it was before, with the final decree as the last act.

The petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Pa. D. & C. 461, 1952 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-bryant-pactcomplphilad-1952.