Harrisburg Hospital v. Houck

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Harrisburg Hospital v. Houck

96 Pa. Super. 24, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 99

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 13, 1929

DocketAppeal 3

StatusPublished

This text of 96 Pa. Super. 24 (Harrisburg Hospital v. Houck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrisburg Hospital v. Houck, 96 Pa. Super. 24, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 99 (Pa. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Experience has shown that rules of court are as useful to counsel presenting cases on appeal as they are necessary to the disposition by the court of the large volume of appellate work presented every year. In this case there has been such general disregard of our rules that we. must again call attention to the matter. It is said that the action is assumpsit, but the pleadings raising the issue for trial are not printed as required by rule 45, while at the same time rule's 55 and 56 were.disregarded. The assignments of error *26 —an es'sential part of the pleadings in this court (Cessna’s Estate, 192 Pa. 14, 18; Standard Brewing Co. v. Knapp, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 252, 254) — were also drawn and printed in obvious disregard of rules.

In the circumstances we apply rule 57 (Eason v. U. S. Shipping Board, 89 Pa. Superior Ct. 485) and dispose of the case without discussion of the merits, though it would 'seem that appellant had no defense to the action.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam,

Experience has shown that rules of court are as useful to counsel presenting cases on appeal as they are necessary to the disposition by the court of the large volume of appellate work presented every year. In this case there has been such general disregard of our rules that we. must again call attention to the matter. It is said that the action is assumpsit, but the pleadings raising the issue for trial are not printed as required by rule 45, while at the same time rule's 55 and 56 were.disregarded. The assignments of error *26 —an es'sential part of the pleadings in this court (Cessna’s Estate, 192 Pa. 14, 18; Standard Brewing Co. v. Knapp, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 252, 254) — were also drawn and printed in obvious disregard of rules.

In the circumstances we apply rule 57 (Eason v. U. S. Shipping Board, 89 Pa. Superior Ct. 485) and dispose of the case without discussion of the merits, though it would 'seem that appellant had no defense to the action.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 Pa. Super. 24, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrisburg-hospital-v-houck-pasuperct-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack