11 Pa. Commw. 565 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1974
Opinion by
On March 21, 1973, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed separate complaints against three individual chiropractors, alleging violations of the provisions of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
After hearing, this Court entered a preliminary injunction which enjoined the defendants from engaging further in certain of the practices of which the Commonwealth complained. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court from the issuance of our injunction.
The defendants timely prepared and filed their brief with the Supreme Court. On or about the date that the Commonwealth’s brief was required to be filed, the defendants, in accord with Supreme Court Rule 20, discontinued their appeal.
The Commonwealth has filed a Bill of Costs with this Court, seeking to have us assess as costs to be paid by the defendants the amount paid for printing the Commonwealth’s brief which it would have filed with the Supreme Court if the defendants’ appeal had not been discontinued.
Supreme Court Rule 20 reads as follows:
“A. An appellant may discontinue an appeal as to all appellees as of course at any time prior to argument or thereafter upon approval of this Court. A discontinuance shall he subject to payment of all of the Prothonotary’s costs and the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, order payment of all or part of appellee’s costs. A discontinuance may not be entered by appellant as to less than all appellees except from agreement of all parties in interest or with the approval of this Court upon motion and after notice to all parties in interest.
It seems apparent to us that, under Bule 20, only the Supreme Court may order payment of the Commonwealth’s costs incident to defendants’ appeal to the Supreme Court from our entry of a preliminary injunction.
The Commonwealth’s only contention here
The Commonwealth contends that the defendants’ failure to await its brief “in order to better evaluate their [defendants’] case” was frivolous and vexatious conduct on the part of the defendants and indicates that the appeal was taken merely “to annoy and harass” the Commonwealth. We simply cannot agree. An exam
We hold that Supreme Court Eule 20 is dispositive of the matter and that the Commonwealth’s only recourse is to importune the Supreme Court to order payment of its printing costs.
Obdeb
Now, this 28th day of January, 1974, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Bill of Costs is denied.
Act of December 17, 1968, P. D. 1244, 73 P.S. §201-1 et seq.
The Commonwealth does not contend that Section 1 of the Act of June 3, 1971, P. L. 118, 12 P.S. §1193, is applicable. That section envisions the rendition of a final decision relative to the appeal whereas here there was a predecision discontinuance under Supreme Court Buie 20. See Taged, Incorporated v. Zoning Board of Adjustment and Shields, et ux., 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 331, 295 A. 2d 339 (1972).