Wallace v. Commonwealth
This text of 228 A.2d 377 (Wallace v. Commonwealth) 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.
Opinions
Opinion by
A portion of plaintiff-appellant’s property located in Butler County was condemned on January 8, 1962 by the Commonwealth, for the purpose of building a national defense and interstate highway between Pittsburgh and Erie. A Board of Viewers awarded damages of $26,500. The Commonwealth filed an appeal in the Court of Common Pleas of. Butler County, and a jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $12,500. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial Judge on February 7, 1966.
On February 15, 1966, the Commonwealth entered judgment on the verdict. Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal on May 4, 1966, seventy-nine days after the date on which judgment was entered in the Court below.
The Act of June 22, 1964
Plaintiff contends that her appeal is timely, since it was filed within forty-five days after she had notice of the entry of judgment. She contends that under Local Bule VII of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, (a) she was entitled to receive notice from the Commonwealth of the entry of judgment, and (b) that the period for filing her appeal commenced upon the receipt of such notice. Bule VII provides: “Serv[212]*212ice of papers, (a) Pleadings and papers relating to any cause pending in any Court of this County, unless otherwise provided for, shall be served on the attorney of record . .
We find no merit in plaintiff’s contention. First of all, Local Rule VII does not expressly apply to entries of judgment and a reasonable construction of the rule could exclude the entry of a judgment from the phrase “pleadings and papers.” Secondly, and more important and controlling, the limitation on the right to appeal created by the Act of June 22, 1964 is both clear and controlling. Local Court Rules, no matter how explicit, cannot negate or change the clear terms of a statute. Art. V, §3, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania gives the Legislature clear and specific authority to prescribe the period of time within which an appeal from a judgment may be taken to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Under the facts in this case, where there is no fraud or wrongful or negligent act of a Court or a Court official, we must quash the appeal. Cumberland Valley Savings and Loan Association v. Myers, 396 Pa. 331, 338, 153 A. 2d 466; cf. also Wise v. Cambridge Springs Borough, 262 Pa. 139, 104 Atl. 863.
Appeal quashed.
P. L. 84, §523, 26 P.S. §1-523.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
228 A.2d 377, 425 Pa. 210, 1967 Pa. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-commonwealth-pa-1967.