Westmoreland Law Journal Volume 9 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1920 Excerpt: ... MATTHEWS ET. AL. VS. RUSH ET. AL. Costs of appeal to Supreme Court and costs of paper book. Act of 16 April, 1907, P. L. S3. Where in an appeal from the decision of the Prothonotary taxing; the costs of an appeal to the Supre-ne Court and the costs of the paper book, It appeared that a judgment In favor of the plaintiffs in the ourt of Common Pleas was affirmed in the Supreme Court on the appeal of the plaintiffs. It was held, fiat notwithstanding the fact that 'he plaintiffs had appealed to the Supreme Court, the assignments of?rror were overruled and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas fftrmed, the plaintiffs were entitle to the costs of appeal and tire-;osts of printing the plaintiff's paper book. In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. No. 273 August Term, 1917. Apeal from taxation of costs. John E. Kunkle, attorney for plaintiffs. Gaither & Whitten, attorneys for defendants. Snyder, J.: --The plaintiffs in this case recovered a verdict against the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County in the sum of $2201.19. The defendants were apparently satisfied with this verdict. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. In that court all the assignments of error were overruled and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed. In taxing the costs the Prothonotary disallowed the claim of the plaintiffs for the cost of this appeal, including the cost of printing plaintiff's paper book. An appeal was taken from the decision of the Prothonotary. The sole question now before this court is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to these costs. The Act of 1907 P. L. 83 provides: "In all cases where an appeal is taken from any judgment to the Supreme Court the party in whese favor the final decision is r...