Hutton v. Morrison

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Hutton v. Morrison

10 Pa. Super. 364, 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 291

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 18, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 Pa. Super. 364 (Hutton v. Morrison) 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

Hutton v. Morrison, 10 Pa. Super. 364, 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 291 (Pa. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In view of the form of the order disposing of the rule for a new trial, we are of opinion that the court had discretionary power to permit the release to be filed nunc pro tunc. The presumption is that there was a meritorious cause for the exercise of the power, and no abuse of discretion is apparent. It is [366]*366not shown that the appellant was harmed by the few days’ delay in the filing of the release, and it is not easy to see how he could have been. The case while not similar in all of its facts, comes fairly within the principles enunciated in Lance v. Bonnell, 105 Pa. 46. If the courts had no discretionary power to relieve from harmless delay, in complying with their rules and orders, the appellant himself must have been turned out of this court without a hearing. We, have, however, considered his case, and are not convinced that the court exceeded its powers or was guilty of a plain abuse of discretion in making the order complained of.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

In view of the form of the order disposing of the rule for a new trial, we are of opinion that the court had discretionary power to permit the release to be filed nunc pro tunc. The presumption is that there was a meritorious cause for the exercise of the power, and no abuse of discretion is apparent. It is [366]*366not shown that the appellant was harmed by the few days’ delay in the filing of the release, and it is not easy to see how he could have been. The case while not similar in all of its facts, comes fairly within the principles enunciated in Lance v. Bonnell, 105 Pa. 46. If the courts had no discretionary power to relieve from harmless delay, in complying with their rules and orders, the appellant himself must have been turned out of this court without a hearing. We, have, however, considered his case, and are not convinced that the court exceeded its powers or was guilty of a plain abuse of discretion in making the order complained of.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Pa. Super. 364, 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutton-v-morrison-pasuperct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack