Duncan v. Pittsburgh-Florida Fruit Growers' Ass'n

127 A. 78, 281 Pa. 280, 1924 Pa. LEXIS 606
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 15, 1924
DocketAppeal, 122
StatusPublished

This text of 127 A. 78 (Duncan v. Pittsburgh-Florida Fruit Growers' Ass'n) 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
Duncan v. Pittsburgh-Florida Fruit Growers' Ass'n, 127 A. 78, 281 Pa. 280, 1924 Pa. LEXIS 606 (Pa. 1924).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Defendant complained in the court below of the failure of the chancellor to answer the requests for findings; his complaint was heeded and answers were filed. At the same time the final decree was entered, and two days thereafter the present appeal was taken. The equity rules in force when this case was tried provided by Buie *281 64 that parties shall have ten days in which to file exceptions, “which exceptions shall cover all objections to ......findings of fact and law.” Here appellant was denied this right. In Lincoln v. Africa, 228 Pa. 546, 552, we said, “Where an equity case has been tried in violation of the equity rules......the Supreme Court will...... set aside the decree” and remit the record with a procedendo; that course will be followed in the present instance.

And now, October 15, 1924, the decree is set aside and the record is remitted to the court below to proceed in accordance with the requirements of the equity rules, costs to await final decree.

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

Related

Lincoln v. Africa
77 A. 918 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A. 78, 281 Pa. 280, 1924 Pa. LEXIS 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-pittsburgh-florida-fruit-growers-assn-pa-1924.