Clarke v. Graham

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Clarke v. Graham

76 A.2d 382, 365 Pa. 542, 1950 Pa. LEXIS 495

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 13, 1950

DocketAppeal, No. 161

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.2d 382 (Clarke v. Graham) 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

Clarke v. Graham, 76 A.2d 382, 365 Pa. 542, 1950 Pa. LEXIS 495 (Pa. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case was correctly determined in the opinion of Judge Soffel.

We do not regard this decree, however, as one of default — pro confesso. We note that a responsive answer was filed to the bill and issue joined. The case then appeared on the equity trial list. The chancellor perceiving that there were no questions of fact raised by the pleadings, but merely questions of law, placed the case on the argument list of the court in banc. This is an irregular practice. A chancellor should first pass upon the case before it is considered, on exceptions, by the court in banc. Curiously enough, before the case was argued before the court in bane, plaintiff and defendant, respectively, made motions under Equity Rules Nos. 55 and 48, raising preliminary objections to bill and answer. Obviously, after a case is at issue, such Equity Rules, relating to preliminary objections, have no application. Such errors in procedure, however, are harmless in this case and do not necessitate re-committal for the purpose of correction.

Decree affirmed. Costs to be paid as directed by the court below.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case was correctly determined in the opinion of Judge Soffel.

We do not regard this decree, however, as one of default — pro confesso. We note that a responsive answer was filed to the bill and issue joined. The case then appeared on the equity trial list. The chancellor perceiving that there were no questions of fact raised by the pleadings, but merely questions of law, placed the case on the argument list of the court in banc. This is an irregular practice. A chancellor should first pass upon the case before it is considered, on exceptions, by the court in banc. Curiously enough, before the case was argued before the court in bane, plaintiff and defendant, respectively, made motions under Equity Rules Nos. 55 and 48, raising preliminary objections to bill and answer. Obviously, after a case is at issue, such Equity Rules, relating to preliminary objections, have no application. Such errors in procedure, however, are harmless in this case and do not necessitate re-committal for the purpose of correction.

Decree affirmed. Costs to be paid as directed by the court below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.2d 382, 365 Pa. 542, 1950 Pa. LEXIS 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarke-v-graham-pa-1950.