Commonwealth v. Howard

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth v. Howard, 149 Pa. 302 (Pa. 1892)
24 A. 308; 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1124
Gbeen, McColltom, Mitchell, Paxson, Stebbett

Commonwealth v. Howard

Opinion of the Court

Per. Curiam,

There was no final judgment in this case. The order of the court below was: “ Stated case is quashed, and new trial granted.” We are of opinion that the-case stated was properly quashed, for the reason that it failed to disclose facts necessary to an intelligent judgment. It ought to be understood that the court cannot go outside of the case stated for its facts, nor can it assume them by way of inference. The case stated having been quashed, the action in the court below stood precisely as if no case stated had been agreed upon.'

The judgment is affirmed, and a procedendo awarded.

Reference

Cited By
8 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Practice, S. G.—Appeal—Final judgment—Quashing case stated. The quashing of a case stated and granting a new trial, on the ground that the case stated fails to disclose facts necessary to an intelligent judgment, is not a final judgment from which an appeal will lie. Gase stated—Requisites. Upon a ease stated, the court cannot go outside of its terms for facts, nor assume them by way of inference. Fffect of quashing. When a case stated is quashed, the action stands precisely as if no ease stated had been agreed upon.