Zollinger v. Adam Eidemiller, Inc.

131 A.2d 103, 388 Pa. 299
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 22, 1957·No. Appeal, No. 62·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Opinion

Per Curiam,

From the order of the court below, resolving the venue of the separate causes of action of the two plaintiffs (joined in one complaint), the plaintiffs have taken but a single appeal. The joint appeal was improperly taken; two appeals, one by each plaintiff, were required: see Shaw v. Plains Township, 270 Pa. 387, 388, 113 A. 410. Nor do the circumstances admit of a non pros as to the one plaintiff, leaving the appeal as that of the other. As the appeal must therefore be quashed, we do not get to the question whether the amount in controversy was sufficient to give this court appellate jurisdiction.

Appeal quashed.

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

Zollinger v. Adam Eidemiller, Inc., 131 A.2d 103, 388 Pa. 299 (Pa. 1957).

131 A.2d 103 (Zollinger v. Adam Eidemiller, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Somerlot, S. v. Jung, S.
2025 Pa. Super. 166 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2025)
McGuill v. Commonwealth
523 A.2d 1194 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
McGUILL v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.
523 A.2d 1194 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
General Electric Credit Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
263 A.2d 448 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1970)