No. 1; Appeal, No. 52 | Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 28, 1904
Opinion by
This cause being at issue upon bill, answer and replication, was duly tried in the mode prescribed by the equity rules. On July 2, 1903, the judge filed his findings of law and fact, together with an opinion, and directed that a decree be drawn in accordance therewith. The counsel for the plaintiff pre
The equity rules provide that the judge’s findings of law and fact and his answers to requests for findings shall be filed with the prothonotary, who shall thereupon enter a decree nisi and give notice to the parties or their counsel. Exceptions may then be filed by either party within ten days, which exceptions shall cover all objections to rulings on evidence, to findings of fact or law, or to the decree in the case. If no exceptions be filed, all objections shall be deemed to be waived and a final decree entered by the prothonotary as of course. ' “ If exceptions shall be filed, they shall be heard upon the argument list as upon a rule for new trial, and the judge or the court in banc shall have power to sustain or dismiss any of such exceptions and confirm, modify or change the decree accordingly.”
It is not claimed by the appellee’s counsel that the court had authority to enter an absolute final decree without first according the appellant a hearing upon the exceptions to the judge’s findings; what they claim is that this was in contemplation of law but a decree nisi, and, therefore, the appeal was taken prematurely and should be quashed. In support of this proposition they cite Shamokin & Coal Twp. Light & Power Co. v. John, 18 Pa. Super. 498" court="Pa. Super. Ct." date_filed="1901-12-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/shamokin--coal-township-light--power-co-v-john-6273563?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6273563">18 Pa. Superior Ct. 498, in which we held, that where the opinion of the trial judge in an equity suit, together with the decree framed by him and his answers to requests for findings of
The trial of cases in equity is regulated by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court which have the force of a statute. They cannot be suspended by the court of common pleas, nor can that court adopt others inconsistent therewith: Gibbons’s Appeal, 104 Pa. 587" court="Pa." date_filed="1883-11-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/gibbonss-appeal-6237617?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6237617">104 Pa. 587. See also Cassidy v. Knapp, 167 Pa. 305" court="Pa." date_filed="1895-04-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/cassidy-v-knapp-6242877?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6242877">167 Pa. 305; Swoope v. Wakefield, 10 Pa. Super. 342" court="Pa. Super. Ct." date_filed="1899-05-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/swoope-v-wakefield-6272567?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6272567">10 Pa. Superior Ct. 342; Chester Traction Co. et al. v. Phila., Wilmington & Balto. R. R. Co., 180 Pa. 432" court="Pa." date_filed="1897-03-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/chester-traction-co-v-philadelphia-wilmington--baltimore-railroad-6244206?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6244206">180 Pa. 432 ; Palethrop v. Palethrop, 184 Pa. 585" court="Pa." date_filed="1898-02-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/palethorp-v-palethorp-6244632?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6244632">184 Pa. 585; Watkins v. Hughes, 206 Pa. 526" court="Pa." date_filed="1903-07-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/watkins-v-hughes-6247303?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6247303">206 Pa. 526. They are the rules of all the courts, to be enforced in all of them, and not relaxed or disregarded as matter of mere indulgence or convenience : ” Hinnershitz v. United Traction Co., 206 Pa. 91" court="Pa." date_filed="1903-05-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hinnershitz-v-united-traction-co-6247201?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6247201">206 Pa. 91. The procedure therein prescribed is simple, easily understood and well calculated to secure an expeditious determination of the case in the trial court and a proper
The motion to quash is overruled.