Chartiers Creek Bridge

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Chartiers Creek Bridge

84 A. 351, 235 Pa. 365, 1912 Pa. LEXIS 551

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 18, 1912

DocketAppeal, No. 63

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 84 A. 351 (Chartiers Creek Bridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chartiers Creek Bridge, 84 A. 351, 235 Pa. 365, 1912 Pa. LEXIS 551 (Pa. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal must be dismissed for the reason that the appellant has no standing to be heard on the questions raised by the assignments of error. It was alleged in the petition for the allowance of an appeal that the case involved the constitutionality of the Act of May 8,1909, [366]*366P. L. 494, and of the Act of February 24, 1873, P. L. 155. And in the order allowing the appeal it was stated that the appeal was allowed for the reason that a constitutional question was involved. This did not bring up the whole case for review, but only the specific question on which an appeal was allowed.

It appears from the record that the question of the constitutionality of the Act of 1909 was not raised in the Superior Court at any stage of the proceedings by this appellant, and it appears from the opinion of that court that the assignment relating to the constitutionality of the Act of 1873 was not pressed at the argument and it was conceded not to be well founded.

Where an order allowing an appeal from the Superior Court states that the appeal is allowed because a constitutional question is involved, the argument here will be limited to that question. Where an assignment of error has been abandoned or not pressed at the argument in the Superior Court, it will not be considered here.

It is just to counsel to say that there was no intention to mislead the court by the allegations in the petition. Two appeals by parties having similar interests were argued together in the Superior Court and disposed of in the same opinion. One of these appeals, but not that of the appellant here, raised the question of the constitutionality of the Act of 1873, and the action of the Superior Court on the assignments in both appeals has been assigned as error here. They are not both before us and our review is limited to the assignments by the appellant.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

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

Per Curiam,

This appeal must be dismissed for the reason that the appellant has no standing to be heard on the questions raised by the assignments of error. It was alleged in the petition for the allowance of an appeal that the case involved the constitutionality of the Act of May 8,1909, [366]*366P. L. 494, and of the Act of February 24, 1873, P. L. 155. And in the order allowing the appeal it was stated that the appeal was allowed for the reason that a constitutional question was involved. This did not bring up the whole case for review, but only the specific question on which an appeal was allowed.

It appears from the record that the question of the constitutionality of the Act of 1909 was not raised in the Superior Court at any stage of the proceedings by this appellant, and it appears from the opinion of that court that the assignment relating to the constitutionality of the Act of 1873 was not pressed at the argument and it was conceded not to be well founded.

Where an order allowing an appeal from the Superior Court states that the appeal is allowed because a constitutional question is involved, the argument here will be limited to that question. Where an assignment of error has been abandoned or not pressed at the argument in the Superior Court, it will not be considered here.

It is just to counsel to say that there was no intention to mislead the court by the allegations in the petition. Two appeals by parties having similar interests were argued together in the Superior Court and disposed of in the same opinion. One of these appeals, but not that of the appellant here, raised the question of the constitutionality of the Act of 1873, and the action of the Superior Court on the assignments in both appeals has been assigned as error here. They are not both before us and our review is limited to the assignments by the appellant.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A. 351, 235 Pa. 365, 1912 Pa. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chartiers-creek-bridge-pa-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack