Reading v. Bentley

Decided March 12, 1888

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1888-03-12

Error, No. 199, Jan. T., 1888, to C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., to review the action of the court in striking off a discontinuance, in an action on the case, by B. Stewart Bentley and John K. Fredericks, assignees in bankruptcy of Peter Herdic, for the use of Frank L. Herdic, against John G. Reading,' at March T., 1884, No. 45. Motion to quash writ because the order of the court was not a final judgment.

Decided 1888-03-12

Per Curiam,

¶1Writ quashed.

¶2Note. — The motion in the above case should be stated as a motion to quash the writ because the order was simply an exercise of judicial discretion which is not assignable for error; and the last sentence of the syllabus should be so stated.

¶3The date of argument was March 12, 1888. Paxson, Trunkey and Sterrett, JJ., absent.

¶4In Bach v. Burke, decided April 20, 1891, the supreme court held that the refusal of the court below to make absolute a rule to discontinue, was not reviewable, although the parties, for a valuable consideration, had agreed to a discontinuance.

¶5See also the next case.