Monaghan v. Smyth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Monaghan v. Smyth

119 A. 917, 276 Pa. 271, 1923 Pa. LEXIS 570

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 12, 1923

DocketAppeal, No. 128

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A. 917 (Monaghan v. Smyth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Monaghan v. Smyth, 119 A. 917, 276 Pa. 271, 1923 Pa. LEXIS 570 (Pa. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The real estate at 2427 Buttonwood Street was appropriated by the City of Philadelphia for parkway purposes; the jury of view made an award, covering this property, of $2,835, with interest from December 9,1909, “To owners of premises shown on official plan as registered in the name of estate of John A. Weart.” The municipality appealed to the Court of Common Pleas No. 3, and, while that appeal was pending, plaintiffs filed a bill in equity in the court below (C. P. No. 1), wherein they alleged that the damages allowed for the appropriation of 2427 Buttonwood Street should be recovered by them and not by the estate mentioned in the award. The bill was dismissed, and the present appeal followed.

As we read the award, it does not undertake to say who are the owners of the premises in question; it merely mentions “the estate of John A. Weart” as a mark of identification. However this may be, since the city’s appeal is still pending in another tribunal than the court below, plaintiffs mistook their remedy when they filed the present bill, and it was properly dismissed.

The order appealed from is affirmed, at cost of appellants, and without prejudice.

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

Per Curiam,

The real estate at 2427 Buttonwood Street was appropriated by the City of Philadelphia for parkway purposes; the jury of view made an award, covering this property, of $2,835, with interest from December 9,1909, “To owners of premises shown on official plan as registered in the name of estate of John A. Weart.” The municipality appealed to the Court of Common Pleas No. 3, and, while that appeal was pending, plaintiffs filed a bill in equity in the court below (C. P. No. 1), wherein they alleged that the damages allowed for the appropriation of 2427 Buttonwood Street should be recovered by them and not by the estate mentioned in the award. The bill was dismissed, and the present appeal followed.

As we read the award, it does not undertake to say who are the owners of the premises in question; it merely mentions “the estate of John A. Weart” as a mark of identification. However this may be, since the city’s appeal is still pending in another tribunal than the court below, plaintiffs mistook their remedy when they filed the present bill, and it was properly dismissed.

The order appealed from is affirmed, at cost of appellants, and without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A. 917, 276 Pa. 271, 1923 Pa. LEXIS 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monaghan-v-smyth-pa-1923.