Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

104 Pa. 294

Commonwealth v. Ruth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 16, 1883

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1883-10-16

83 and 84. These were two indictments against Samuel Ruth, one for forgery and the other for embezzlement and larceny .as employee. The record in No. 83 showed the following : March 14th 1883, grand jury returns true bill. March 23rd 1883. Petition of defendant, for entry of a stet on all further proceedings under the indictments against him. And now March 26th 1883, the court enters a stet upon above indictment, on payment of costs by defendant. Geo.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-10-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1972

6 state decisions

201883189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Chief Justice Mercur

¶1delivered the opinions of the court, October 29th 1883.

¶2No. 83, October and November Term 1883.

¶3It is very clear that there is no final judgment in this case. It is an issue between the Commonwealth and the defendant. As the record stands there is no verdict on which judgment has been or could be entered. The ease has not been dismissed by the entry of a nolle prosequi. Although the prosecution has been suspended by the rather unusual act of ordering a stet to be entered, yet it is nevertheless in its legal effect a stay only. The case has not yet reached a final judgment. If the court erred in ordering this entry, it cannot be reviewed now on this writ of error. If it could be, we might have several writs of error on a single judgment by the same party in the same case. This cannot be. There must be a final judgment or something in the nature of a final judgment before it is ripe for review in this court. Chadwick v. Ober, 20 P. F. Smith, 264; Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 30 Id. 57.

¶4*298After verdict arid judgment thereon, then, and not till then, can the alleged error be reviewed here on writ of error.

¶5As the writ of error was taken prematurely there is no final judgment to either reverse or affirm.

¶6Writ quashed.

¶7No. 84, October and November Term 1883. This case has advanced a step nearer to final judgment than the other case, between the same parties, which we have just decided. It has however not yet reached the end necessary to precede a reviewing of the case here.

¶8A verdict of guilty was rendered on an indictment containing seven counts. Judgment was arrested as to the fifth count, and a new trial granted on the remaining counts. At this stage of the case the stet was ordered. There the proceeding now •rests. While the arrest of judgment on the one count might be a proper subject of review at the proper time, yet the time for such review on this writ of error has not yet arrived. For reasons given in the opinion just filed in the other case between the same parties, this case must meet the same fate.

¶9Writ quashed.

/104/pa/294 · .json · Public domain