Eberly v. Stober

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas

Eberly v. Stober

9 Pa. D. & C. 109, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 26

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County

DecidedJune 26, 1926

DocketNo. 56

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Pa. D. & C. 109 (Eberly v. Stober) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eberly v. Stober, 9 Pa. D. & C. 109, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 26 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Landis, P. J.,

Suit was brought by the plaintiff before a justice of the peace to recover a book account for $276.98 alleged to be due to him by the defendant. After a hearing duly had on April 14, 1925, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $299.27 on April 23, 1925. The defendant appealed, and on May 15, 1925, in proper time, the appeal was filed in this court. Thereupon, on Oct. 25, 1925, the plaintiff obtained the above rule.

It is asserted in the petition that the defendant did not sign the appeal. I am of the opinion that this claim is incorrect. The appeal was signed and sworn to by him in due form, and it cannot be stricken off on that account.

It is also claimed that the defendant, at the hearing, admitted the correctness of the claim, and for that reason the appeal should be stricken off. I know of no case which decides such a proposition, and I can see no merit in it. If the defendant swore untruly when he took the appeal, he can be prosecuted for perjury, but the appeal must stand until disposed of in this court. Again, even though he made such a statement before the justice, he may afterwards have come into possession of facts which fully justified him in taking the appeal. It seems to me that under no circumstances can such summary action be taken when the proceedings on their face are in regular form.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that this rule be discharged. Rule discharged.

From George Ross Eshleman, Lancaster, Pa.

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

Landis, P. J.,

Suit was brought by the plaintiff before a justice of the peace to recover a book account for $276.98 alleged to be due to him by the defendant. After a hearing duly had on April 14, 1925, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $299.27 on April 23, 1925. The defendant appealed, and on May 15, 1925, in proper time, the appeal was filed in this court. Thereupon, on Oct. 25, 1925, the plaintiff obtained the above rule.

It is asserted in the petition that the defendant did not sign the appeal. I am of the opinion that this claim is incorrect. The appeal was signed and sworn to by him in due form, and it cannot be stricken off on that account.

It is also claimed that the defendant, at the hearing, admitted the correctness of the claim, and for that reason the appeal should be stricken off. I know of no case which decides such a proposition, and I can see no merit in it. If the defendant swore untruly when he took the appeal, he can be prosecuted for perjury, but the appeal must stand until disposed of in this court. Again, even though he made such a statement before the justice, he may afterwards have come into possession of facts which fully justified him in taking the appeal. It seems to me that under no circumstances can such summary action be taken when the proceedings on their face are in regular form.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that this rule be discharged. Rule discharged.

From George Ross Eshleman, Lancaster, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Pa. D. & C. 109, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eberly-v-stober-pactcompllancas-1926.