Yerkes v. Stetson

61 A. 113, 211 Pa. 556, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 499
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 24, 1905·No. Appeals Nos. 135 and 136·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal being taken shortly after the close of the Montgomery county list last year the appellees in May, 1904, made a special motion to quash on the ground that there was no final judgment in the court below from which an appeal would lie.

The motion being somewhat unusual as to time and out of the ordinary course of practice was dismissed temporarily and the consideration of the matter postponed until the case should appear in its regular place on the Montgomery county list where it has now been reached. The appellees now withdraw their motion and ask to have the question raised on the record decided, so as to relieve them from further delay on this ground. As there has already been a considerable delay for which the action of the court is partly responsible, and as the question has now been fully argued and the court is advised upon it, we think it right under the special circumstances to make an exception to the general rule and express our opinion.

The order discharging the rule to set aside the service is affirmed on the opinion of the learned judge below.

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

Yerkes v. Stetson, 61 A. 113, 211 Pa. 556, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 499 (Pa. 1905).

61 A. 113 (Yerkes v. Stetson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Earney v. Clay
516 S.W.2d 59 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1974)
Manogue v. Heilbroner
63 A.2d 876 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1949)
Douglass v. Queeney, Jr. Et Ux.
167 A. 453 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Hess v. Gerhart
19 Pa. D. & C. 253 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1933)
Skibinzewski v. Newhouse
12 Pa. D. & C. 419 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1929)
Guilian v. Grover
9 Pa. D. & C. 62 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)