Walk v. Local Union No. 830, United Mine Workers of America

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Walk v. Local Union No. 830, United Mine Workers of America

91 Pa. Super. 333, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 194

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 21, 1927

DocketAppeal 182

StatusPublished

This text of 91 Pa. Super. 333 (Walk v. Local Union No. 830, United Mine Workers of America) 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

Walk v. Local Union No. 830, United Mine Workers of America, 91 Pa. Super. 333, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 194 (Pa. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The decree nisi in this ease was filed November 17, 1926. It awarded to the plaintiff damages to the amount of $900 and directed that he pay the cost of the proceeding. On December 6, 1926, the plaintiff’s attorney obtained leave to file an exception nunc pro tunc to that part of it which charged the plaintiff with the costs. The only question before the court therefore under the equity practice was whether the plaintiff should be so charged. After argument the court sustained the exception and awarded cost to the plaintiff, but at the same time reduced the amount of the decree $100. From that decree the plaintiff appeals. We have examined the record and are unable to find support for a change in the amount decreed to the plaintiff. If no exceptions had been filed, all objections *335 would be deemed to bave been waived and the decree nisi would have been entered as the final decree by the prothonotary as of course. (Equity Rule 70.) Under Rule 71, if exceptions are filed they are to be sustained or dismissed in whole or in part and the decree nisi is to be changed accordingly. As the only part of the decree- challenged by the exception was the imposing of costs on the plaintiff and this exception was sustained, nothing else remained for determination by the court. There was no notice to the plaintiff that any other subject was before the court and a review of the former adjudication was not brought up except as to the costs. We are of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled bo the amount of the decree as originally fixed by the court. It is therefore reinstated as the final decree at the cost of the appellee.

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

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The decree nisi in this ease was filed November 17, 1926. It awarded to the plaintiff damages to the amount of $900 and directed that he pay the cost of the proceeding. On December 6, 1926, the plaintiff’s attorney obtained leave to file an exception nunc pro tunc to that part of it which charged the plaintiff with the costs. The only question before the court therefore under the equity practice was whether the plaintiff should be so charged. After argument the court sustained the exception and awarded cost to the plaintiff, but at the same time reduced the amount of the decree $100. From that decree the plaintiff appeals. We have examined the record and are unable to find support for a change in the amount decreed to the plaintiff. If no exceptions had been filed, all objections *335 would be deemed to bave been waived and the decree nisi would have been entered as the final decree by the prothonotary as of course. (Equity Rule 70.) Under Rule 71, if exceptions are filed they are to be sustained or dismissed in whole or in part and the decree nisi is to be changed accordingly. As the only part of the decree- challenged by the exception was the imposing of costs on the plaintiff and this exception was sustained, nothing else remained for determination by the court. There was no notice to the plaintiff that any other subject was before the court and a review of the former adjudication was not brought up except as to the costs. We are of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled bo the amount of the decree as originally fixed by the court. It is therefore reinstated as the final decree at the cost of the appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 Pa. Super. 333, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walk-v-local-union-no-830-united-mine-workers-of-america-pasuperct-1927.