Roller v. Meredith
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Roller v. Meredith, 4 Pa. Super. 461 (1897)
1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 146
Beaver, Orladt, Orlady, Reeder, Smith, Wickham, Willard
Roller v. Meredith
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
This is an appeal from a judgment ordered by the court below upon a case stated, but the record does not show that a judgment was entered thereon; that any exception was asked for or allowed in the court below. No assignment of error has been filed and there is nothing on this record for us to decide: Shaffer v. Eichert, 132 Pa. 285.
However the case has been examined as if regularly in court and the decision below was correct.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James C. Roller and C. F. Shoemaker, partners trading as Roller & Shoemaker v. W. N. Meredith
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Statute of limitations — -Debt not grounded, upon lending or contract. In au action on a recognizance of bail for stay of execution, begun by writ of sci. fa. the remedy might as well have been by action of debt and the bar of the statute cannot be pleaded, — the cause of aefion being without specialty but not grounded upon any lending or contract. Statute of limitations — Oause not form of action determines the bar. In determining whether the statute of limitations is a bar in any particular case, regard must be had to the cause and not to the form of action ; whenever the cause of action is such as would be subject to the bar if prosecuted under any form then the statute is applicable, otherwise not. Appeals — defective record — Absence of assignments. Where the record does not show that a judgment was entered on the decree of the court and where no exception was asked for or allowed in the court below and no assignment of error has been filed, there is nothing on the record for the appellate court to decide.