Smith v. Jones

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Smith v. Jones

85 A.2d 23, 369 Pa. 13

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 27, 1951

DocketAppeal, 71

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 85 A.2d 23 (Smith v. Jones) 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

Smith v. Jones, 85 A.2d 23, 369 Pa. 13 (Pa. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from an order of the court below discharging a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was discharged June 21, 1951. The appeal was entered October 16, 1951. A motion to quash the appeal was filed because more than three months had elapsed from the date of the order.

The record shows that on July 25, 1951, the court granted a reargument but without a stay of proceedings," subsequently heard reargument and on October *14 4, 1951, entered the following order: “October 4, 1951. . . . motion for judgment on the pleadings having been reconsidered on briefs submitted by the parties, we see no reason for reversing our order of June 21, 1951, dismissing same, and, therefore, confirm said order as of the date on which it was entered.”

Appellants argue that the appeal period runs from the date of the order last quoted and not from the date of the original order. The appeal must be quashed. As recently as Baily Petition, 365 Pa. 613, 76 A. 2d 645 (1950), we held that a petition for reargument and proceedings thereunder do not operate to arrest the running of the time.limit for an appeal unless a stay of proceedings is granted. Here there was no stay and the court did not vacate its original order but on the contrary expressly confirmed it as of the date originally entered.

Appeal quashed at appellants’ costs.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from an order of the court below discharging a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was discharged June 21, 1951. The appeal was entered October 16, 1951. A motion to quash the appeal was filed because more than three months had elapsed from the date of the order.

The record shows that on July 25, 1951, the court granted a reargument but without a stay of proceedings," subsequently heard reargument and on October *14 4, 1951, entered the following order: “October 4, 1951. . . . motion for judgment on the pleadings having been reconsidered on briefs submitted by the parties, we see no reason for reversing our order of June 21, 1951, dismissing same, and, therefore, confirm said order as of the date on which it was entered.”

Appellants argue that the appeal period runs from the date of the order last quoted and not from the date of the original order. The appeal must be quashed. As recently as Baily Petition, 365 Pa. 613, 76 A. 2d 645 (1950), we held that a petition for reargument and proceedings thereunder do not operate to arrest the running of the time.limit for an appeal unless a stay of proceedings is granted. Here there was no stay and the court did not vacate its original order but on the contrary expressly confirmed it as of the date originally entered.

Appeal quashed at appellants’ costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.2d 23, 369 Pa. 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-jones-pa-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack