Walters v. Simonetti

Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas

Walters v. Simonetti

62 Pa. D. & C.2d 500, 1972 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 41

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mifflin County

DecidedMarch 31, 1972

Docketno. 84

StatusPublished

This text of 62 Pa. D. & C.2d 500 (Walters v. Simonetti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mifflin County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walters v. Simonetti, 62 Pa. D. & C.2d 500, 1972 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 41 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

ZIEGLER, P. J.,

Defendant, appellant, filed an appeal from judgment entered by District Justice William M. Foster on January 3, 1972, by filing with the prothonotary on January 21, 1972, a praecipe giving notice of the appeal and requesting a rule on plaintiff, appellee, to file complaint within 20 days. Plaintiff filed on February 25, 1972, motion to strike off appeal whereupon the court by decree of February 25, 1972, fixed argument for 11 a.m. on March 14, 1972. The sole reason specified by plaintiff in his motion was that defendant had not filed an affidavit that his appeal was not for delay in accordance with section 1 of the act approved July 14, 1897, P. L. 271, as amended, 42 PS §919, which provides as follows:

“From and after the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and three, no appeal shall be allowed from the judgment of a justice of the peace or aider-man, unless the appellant, or his attorney or agent, at the time of taking said appeal, shall make affidavit in writing that the appeal is not for delay, but because he verily believes that injustice has been done.”

We shall dismiss the motion to strike off appeal. Foregoing section of the Act of July 14, 1897, supra, was suspended by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Justice of the Peace 1081(11) adopted by order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on June 1, 1971, to become effective October 1, 1971. Since the body of rules of which aforerecited rule is part did not revive the requirement of such affidavit, we make the following

ORDER

And now, this May 31, 1972, plaintiff’s motion to strike off appeal is dismissed. Exception is noted to Lester H. Zimmerman, Jr., attorney for plaintiff.

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

ZIEGLER, P. J.,

Defendant, appellant, filed an appeal from judgment entered by District Justice William M. Foster on January 3, 1972, by filing with the prothonotary on January 21, 1972, a praecipe giving notice of the appeal and requesting a rule on plaintiff, appellee, to file complaint within 20 days. Plaintiff filed on February 25, 1972, motion to strike off appeal whereupon the court by decree of February 25, 1972, fixed argument for 11 a.m. on March 14, 1972. The sole reason specified by plaintiff in his motion was that defendant had not filed an affidavit that his appeal was not for delay in accordance with section 1 of the act approved July 14, 1897, P. L. 271, as amended, 42 PS §919, which provides as follows:

“From and after the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and three, no appeal shall be allowed from the judgment of a justice of the peace or aider-man, unless the appellant, or his attorney or agent, at the time of taking said appeal, shall make affidavit in writing that the appeal is not for delay, but because he verily believes that injustice has been done.”

We shall dismiss the motion to strike off appeal. Foregoing section of the Act of July 14, 1897, supra, was suspended by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Justice of the Peace 1081(11) adopted by order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on June 1, 1971, to become effective October 1, 1971. Since the body of rules of which aforerecited rule is part did not revive the requirement of such affidavit, we make the following

ORDER

And now, this May 31, 1972, plaintiff’s motion to strike off appeal is dismissed. Exception is noted to Lester H. Zimmerman, Jr., attorney for plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Pa. D. & C.2d 500, 1972 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walters-v-simonetti-pactcomplmiffli-1972.