Ward v. Letzkus
| Citation | 152 Pa. 318,25 A. 778 |
| Decision Date | 03 January 1893 |
| Docket Number | 74 |
| Parties | Ward, Appellant, v. Letzkus |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
October 28, 1892, Submitted
Appeal, No. 74, Oct. T., 1892, by plaintiff, M.S. Ward & Co., from order of C.P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1891, No. 236, permitting an appeal from a justice of the peace to be filed nunc pro tunc.
Appeal from justice of peace.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Errors assigned were, order of court (1) granting and (2) making absolute rule to show cause why defendant should not be permitted to file transcript nunc pro tunc, quoting orders.
The case was submitted without oral argument.
Reversed and set aside.
Clarence Burleigh and John R. Harbison, for appellant, cited, in their printed brief, Mountney v. McFarland, 7 Phila. 392; Houk v. Knop, 2 Watts, 72; Bradley v. Ritchie, 6 Montg. Co. R. 36.
No brief was filed contra.
Before PAXSON, C.J., STERRETT, GREEN, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL and HEYDRICK, JJ.
The appellant, having taken his appeal from the judgment of the justice of the peace within the time required by law, neglected to file the transcript in the court of common pleas until after an intervening return day had passed. The only reason given for this neglect was the forgetfulness of his attorney. Upon the application of the appellant the court below granted a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be filed nunc pro tunc, and several months after the return day had passed made the rule absolute. This is the error complained of.
We are not advised as to the ground upon which the court below made this ruling. The act of May 18, 1871, P.L. 938, provides that all appeals from the judgment of justices of the peace in the county of Allegheny shall be filed in the court of common pleas on or before the monthly return day in said court next ensuing. This is the command of the act of assembly, and without saying that under no circumstances could the court of common pleas allow an appeal nunc pro tunc, we are quite sure it should not have been done in this case. No reason is given beyond the neglect of counsel. The counsel was the mere agent of the client, Houk v. Knop, 2 Watts, 72, and the neglect of the one was the neglect of the other.
The order of the court below allowing the defendant to enter his appeal nunc pro tunc is
Reversed and set aside.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuel City Mfg. Co. v. Waynesburg Products Corp.
... ... convince him that an injustice has been done." ... The ... court below relied upon the principle stated in Ward v ... Letzkus, 152 Pa. 318, and in Houk v. Knop, 2 ... Watts 72, to the effect that the default of the attorney is ... visited upon the client, ... ...
-
Guy v. Stoecklein Baking Co.
... ... 60. The ... mistake or neglect of the attorney for the party desiring to ... appeal is not sufficient ground for relief: Ward v ... Letzkus, 152 Pa. 318, 319, 25 A. 778." Again, in ... Horn v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., supra (p. 44), in ... considering this same section ... ...
-
Klugman v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.
...in this case is so firmly established in analogous situations there can be no doubt that it is also applicable here. In Ward v. Letzkus, 152 Pa. 318, 25 A. 778 (1893), a judgment of a justice of the peace was appealed to a common pleas court. Upon application setting forth only that the app......
-
Klugman v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.
... ... [182 A.2d 226] ... situations there can be no doubt that it is also applicable ... In Ward ... v. Letzkus, 152 Pa. 318, 25 A. 778 (1893), a judgment of ... a justice of the peace was appealed to a common pleas court ... Upon application ... ...