From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meade v. Equitable Credit Dis. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 11, 1959
155 A.2d 286 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959)

Summary

In Meade v. Equitable Credit Discount Co., 190 Pa. Super. 561, 155 A.2d 386 (1959), and Morrison v. UnionNational Bank, 244 Pa. Super. 634, 371 A.2d 1310 (1977), appellants did not serve either appellees or their counsel with a copy of the notice of appeal. Those opinions have no application to the within fact situation.

Summary of this case from Mikita v. Bailey Homes, Inc.

Opinion

September 14, 1959.

November 11, 1959.

Appeals — Notice — Appeal from award of arbitrators — Rule of Municipal Court — Circumstances.

In this case, in which it appeared that plaintiff filed an appeal from the award of arbitrators; that by rule of the lower court the appellant was required to serve notice of appeal upon the adverse party or his counsel; that each defendant filed a rule to quash the appeal on the ground that neither it nor its counsel had received notice of the appeal; that plaintiff by his attorney filed answers averring that notice of the appeal was forwarded by mail to the one defendant and admitting that no notice was sent to the other defendant through oversight; and that the court below, holding that questionable conduct of plaintiff's attorney precluded any granting of leniency, ordered that the rules of both defendants to quash the appeal be made absolute; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.

Before RHODES, P.J., WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ. (HIRT and GUNTHER, JJ., absent).

Appeal, No. 207, Oct. T., 1959, from order of Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, May T., 1957, No. 1011, in case of Carl B. Meade v. Equitable Credit Discount Company et al. Order affirmed.

Same case in court below: 18 Pa. D. C. 2d 646.

Appeal by plaintiff from award by arbitrators.

Defendants' motions to quash appeal sustained, opinion by DINUBILE, J. Plaintiff appealed.

Martin Techner, with him Techner, Rubin Shapiro, for plaintiff, appellant.

Joseph G. Feldman, with him Stephen M. Feldman, Edward J. Marcantonio, and Feldman Feldman, for defendant, appellee. Stanley E. Gordon and Wollman, Tracey, Schlesinger Salus, for defendant, appellee.


Argued September 14, 1959.


The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge DINUBILE, of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, as reported in 18 Pa. D. C. 2d 646.


Summaries of

Meade v. Equitable Credit Dis. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 11, 1959
155 A.2d 286 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959)

In Meade v. Equitable Credit Discount Co., 190 Pa. Super. 561, 155 A.2d 386 (1959), and Morrison v. UnionNational Bank, 244 Pa. Super. 634, 371 A.2d 1310 (1977), appellants did not serve either appellees or their counsel with a copy of the notice of appeal. Those opinions have no application to the within fact situation.

Summary of this case from Mikita v. Bailey Homes, Inc.

In Meade v. Equitable Credit Discount Co., 190 Pa. Super. 561, 155 A.2d 386 (1959), we affirmed a lower court decision quashing an appeal which did not comply with a Philadelphia rule of court which required service of a notice of appeal on opposing counsel.

Summary of this case from Mikita v. Bailey Homes, Inc.
Case details for

Meade v. Equitable Credit Dis. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Meade, Appellant, v. Equitable Credit Discount Company

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 11, 1959

Citations

155 A.2d 286 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959)
155 A.2d 286

Citing Cases

Mikita v. Bailey Homes, Inc.

Justice therefore requires a procedure which ensures that an appellee will receive adequate notice of the…