Palmer v. Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern Railroad

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Palmer v. Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern Railroad

64 A. 686, 215 Pa. 518, 1906 Pa. LEXIS 836

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 24, 1906

DocketAppeal, No. 356

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A. 686 (Palmer v. Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern Railroad) 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

Palmer v. Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern Railroad, 64 A. 686, 215 Pa. 518, 1906 Pa. LEXIS 836 (Pa. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

This action was brought against the Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern Railroad Company. On November 17,1905, the case was called for trial, and on the day following a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $5,847. It seems that this appellant was appointed receiver of the defendant company on August 1, 1905, but he never intervened in the suit and defended in his representative capacity. The judgment was against the railroad company alone, and from it the company could not have appealed without giving the bond required by section 6 of the Act of May 19,1897, P. L. 67. The company did not appeal, but the receiver, without ever having become a party to the record, took this appeal, filing in the court below an unapproved bond in the nominal sum of $100, which contains conditions not to be found in the act of 1897. The motion to quash the appeal must prevail. If it had been taken by the railroad company on such a bond as was filed by the receiver, we would be required to quash it. When he might have defended in his representative capacity, he failed to do so. He appeared only after judgment was entered against the company, and even then without leave of court. His right to appeal under the circumstances, without giving the bond required by the act of assembly to secure to the appellee the payment of the judgment recovered against the railroad company, cannot be recognized.

Appeal quashed.

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

Pee Curiam,

This action was brought against the Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern Railroad Company. On November 17,1905, the case was called for trial, and on the day following a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $5,847. It seems that this appellant was appointed receiver of the defendant company on August 1, 1905, but he never intervened in the suit and defended in his representative capacity. The judgment was against the railroad company alone, and from it the company could not have appealed without giving the bond required by section 6 of the Act of May 19,1897, P. L. 67. The company did not appeal, but the receiver, without ever having become a party to the record, took this appeal, filing in the court below an unapproved bond in the nominal sum of $100, which contains conditions not to be found in the act of 1897. The motion to quash the appeal must prevail. If it had been taken by the railroad company on such a bond as was filed by the receiver, we would be required to quash it. When he might have defended in his representative capacity, he failed to do so. He appeared only after judgment was entered against the company, and even then without leave of court. His right to appeal under the circumstances, without giving the bond required by the act of assembly to secure to the appellee the payment of the judgment recovered against the railroad company, cannot be recognized.

Appeal quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A. 686, 215 Pa. 518, 1906 Pa. LEXIS 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-pittsburg-shawmut-northern-railroad-pa-1906.