Houser v. Kime

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Houser v. Kime

42 Pa. Super. 483, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 358

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 11, 1910

DocketAppeal, No. 20

StatusPublished

This text of 42 Pa. Super. 483 (Houser v. Kime) 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

Houser v. Kime, 42 Pa. Super. 483, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 358 (Pa. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The transcript of the justice of the peace and his return to the suggestion of diminution of record show that the action was assumpsit “ to recover 15.00 due from defendant to plaintiff under promise to pay for window broken on plaintiff’s premises.” The-depositions submitted to the court below, ostensibly, to show want of jurisdiction in the justice of the peace, are no part of the record brought up with this appeal: Crumley v. Crescent Coal Co., 13 Pa. Superior Ct. 231; Wyatt v. Szymanski, 38 Pa. Superior Ct. 525. As-the record proper shows [484]*484that the justice had jurisdiction of the parties and the cause of action, under the Act of March 20, 1810, P. L. 208, 5 Sm. L. 161, there is no room for argument that the provision of sec. 22 of the same act relative to the finality of the judgment of the common pleas upon certiorari to a justice of the peace in such a case does not apply.

The appeal is quashed.

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

Per Curiam,

The transcript of the justice of the peace and his return to the suggestion of diminution of record show that the action was assumpsit “ to recover 15.00 due from defendant to plaintiff under promise to pay for window broken on plaintiff’s premises.” The-depositions submitted to the court below, ostensibly, to show want of jurisdiction in the justice of the peace, are no part of the record brought up with this appeal: Crumley v. Crescent Coal Co., 13 Pa. Superior Ct. 231; Wyatt v. Szymanski, 38 Pa. Superior Ct. 525. As-the record proper shows [484]*484that the justice had jurisdiction of the parties and the cause of action, under the Act of March 20, 1810, P. L. 208, 5 Sm. L. 161, there is no room for argument that the provision of sec. 22 of the same act relative to the finality of the judgment of the common pleas upon certiorari to a justice of the peace in such a case does not apply.

The appeal is quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 Pa. Super. 483, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houser-v-kime-pasuperct-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack