Estate of Cessna

43 A. 376, 192 Pa. 14, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 872
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 23, 1899
DocketAppeal, No. 225
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 43 A. 376 (Estate of Cessna) 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
Estate of Cessna, 43 A. 376, 192 Pa. 14, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 872 (Pa. 1899).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

As to appellee’s motion to quash this appeal for violation of our rules relating to assignments of error, it is only necessary to repeat, in substance, what has so often been said in Landis v. Evans, 113 Pa. 332, and many other cases, that assignments of error are an essential part of the pleadings in this Court, and, as such, they should be so complete in themselves as not to require reference to other parts of the record presented for our consideration. When the cause is disposed of by us and the record is remitted to the court below, all that usually remains of record here are the praecipe, assignments of error and pleas thereto. These should be so complete in themselves as to show the basis of our judgment or decree, as the case may be. It must therefore be obvious to every reflecting mind that each specification of error, respectively, should, in and of itself, present the question we are called upon to decide.

Tested by this principle, the motion to quash is well taken and should prevail; but we are all so well satisfied with the correctness- of the learned court’s decision on all the questions presented by the record that we have concluded to dispose of the cáse on its merits by affirming the decree appealed from, on the opinion of the learned president of the 20th judicial district, who specially presided at the hearing.

We deem it unnecessary to add anything to what he has so well said.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.

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

Related

In Re Petition of Boro. of Churchill
170 A. 319 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Harrisburg Hospital v. Houck
96 Pa. Super. 24 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
Hall v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
113 A. 669 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)
Burkhard v. Pennsylvania Water Co.
90 A. 157 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)
Hilliard v. Sterlingworth Railway Supply Co.
84 A. 680 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
Sipps v. Pusey
49 Pa. Super. 326 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
Little v. Fearon
49 Pa. Super. 634 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
Rahm's Estate
82 A. 941 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
North Mountain Water Supply Co. v. Troxell
72 A. 621 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)
Barr Township Road
29 Pa. Super. 203 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Arnold v. Russell Car & Snow Plow Co.
61 A. 914 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 A. 376, 192 Pa. 14, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-cessna-pa-1899.