Schwenker & Co. v. Wagner

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Schwenker & Co. v. Wagner

71 Pa. Super. 573, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 153

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 8, 1919

DocketAppeal, No. 22

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 Pa. Super. 573 (Schwenker & Co. v. Wagner) 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

Schwenker & Co. v. Wagner, 71 Pa. Super. 573, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 153 (Pa. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

The record of the alderman was before the lower court on certiorari. The only exception attacking the record was that the magistrate was disqualified to act in the matter “because he was related to the personnel of the plaintiff company.” The court overruled the exception and affirmed the judgment. This settled the matter. The 22d Section of the Act of March 20,1810, 5 Smith’s Laws 171, Purdon’s Digest, 13th Ed., 1453, provides that “the judgment of the court of common pleas shall be final on all proceedings removed as aforesaid (by certiorari) by the said court and no writ of error shall issue thereon”: Phœnix Iron Works Co. v. Mullen, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 547.

[575]*575The appellant argues that the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time even in the appellate court: Fowler v. Eddy, 110 Pa. 117. We may answer this in the language of this court in Phoenix Iron Works v. Mullen, supra. “It is sufficient for present purposes to say that the record does not show lack of jurisdiction, either of the parties or of the subject-matter.”

Appeal quashed.

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

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

The record of the alderman was before the lower court on certiorari. The only exception attacking the record was that the magistrate was disqualified to act in the matter “because he was related to the personnel of the plaintiff company.” The court overruled the exception and affirmed the judgment. This settled the matter. The 22d Section of the Act of March 20,1810, 5 Smith’s Laws 171, Purdon’s Digest, 13th Ed., 1453, provides that “the judgment of the court of common pleas shall be final on all proceedings removed as aforesaid (by certiorari) by the said court and no writ of error shall issue thereon”: Phœnix Iron Works Co. v. Mullen, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 547.

[575]*575The appellant argues that the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time even in the appellate court: Fowler v. Eddy, 110 Pa. 117. We may answer this in the language of this court in Phoenix Iron Works v. Mullen, supra. “It is sufficient for present purposes to say that the record does not show lack of jurisdiction, either of the parties or of the subject-matter.”

Appeal quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 Pa. Super. 573, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwenker-co-v-wagner-pasuperct-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack