Houser v. Kime

42 Pa. Super. 483, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 358
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 11, 1910·No. Appeal, No. 20·Published

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

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

42 Pa. Super. 483 (Houser v. Kime) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crumley v. Crescent Coal Co.
13 Pa. Super. 231 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1900)
Wyatt v. Szymanski
38 Pa. Super. 525 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)