Hanco Steel Products Co. v. Clark

Mercer County Court of Common Pleas

Hanco Steel Products Co. v. Clark

30 Pa. D. & C.2d 97, 1963 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 246

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County

DecidedMarch 28, 1963

Docketno. 219

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Pa. D. & C.2d 97 (Hanco Steel Products Co. v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanco Steel Products Co. v. Clark, 30 Pa. D. & C.2d 97, 1963 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 246 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Rodgers, P. J.,

Plaintiff brought suit against defendants for $1,500. The matter was referred to compulsory arbitration in accordance with our rules and the arbitrators found for plaintiff. A timely appeal was filed. The fees of the board of arbitration were paid as required by our rules, but the costs required to be paid by the relevant statute were not paid. A motion to dismiss the appeal was filed and defendants immediately filed an answer and paid the [98]*98costs in the amount of $19.75. Plaintiff contended that the payment of the costs after the time for filing an appeal had passed does not aid defendant. Defendants contend that they were misled by the rule of this court which set out the requirement of the repayment of the arbitrators’ fees but does not specifically require the payment of all other costs.

Our question is whether we should strictly apply the statute as was done in Ostot v. Shoff, 22 D. & C. 2d 488 (1960), or the more liberal viewpoint of Stanley Distributing Company v. Fetterhoff, 69 Dauph. 60 (1956), which refused to quash an appeal where the appellant had originally failed to pay the costs.

The right to trial by jury is guaranteed by the constitution and should not be lightly denied.

In this case, it is easy to see how counsel may have been misled by relying on the rules issued by this court. Under these circumstances, the motion to dismiss the appeal will be overruled.

Order

And now, March 28, 1963, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal in the above matter is overruled.

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

Rodgers, P. J.,

Plaintiff brought suit against defendants for $1,500. The matter was referred to compulsory arbitration in accordance with our rules and the arbitrators found for plaintiff. A timely appeal was filed. The fees of the board of arbitration were paid as required by our rules, but the costs required to be paid by the relevant statute were not paid. A motion to dismiss the appeal was filed and defendants immediately filed an answer and paid the [98]*98costs in the amount of $19.75. Plaintiff contended that the payment of the costs after the time for filing an appeal had passed does not aid defendant. Defendants contend that they were misled by the rule of this court which set out the requirement of the repayment of the arbitrators’ fees but does not specifically require the payment of all other costs.

Our question is whether we should strictly apply the statute as was done in Ostot v. Shoff, 22 D. & C. 2d 488 (1960), or the more liberal viewpoint of Stanley Distributing Company v. Fetterhoff, 69 Dauph. 60 (1956), which refused to quash an appeal where the appellant had originally failed to pay the costs.

The right to trial by jury is guaranteed by the constitution and should not be lightly denied.

In this case, it is easy to see how counsel may have been misled by relying on the rules issued by this court. Under these circumstances, the motion to dismiss the appeal will be overruled.

Order

And now, March 28, 1963, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal in the above matter is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Pa. D. & C.2d 97, 1963 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanco-steel-products-co-v-clark-pactcomplmercer-1963.