AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY-MANDAMUS.

No appeal lies to the Superior Court from a judgment in mandamus proceedings commanding the defendants to permit the plaintiffs to inspect the books of a corporation. In such a case the subject of controversy is not the ownership or possession of real or personal property, or any right, the value of which is admitted or asserted to be less than $1500. Neubert vs. Armstrong Water Co., 26–608.

CERTIFYING APPEALS TO THE SUPREME COURT.

Where an appeal is erroneously taken to the Superior instead of the Supreme Court, the writ will not be quashed, but the case will be certified to the Supreme Court for hearing and decision. Neubert vs. Armstrong Water Company, 26–608.

Where questions raised on a motion to quash are so difficult and important as to make it expedient that they should be decided by the Supreme Court, the Superior Court will certify the case upon the questions raised to the Supreme Court under Section 10 of the Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 212. Melon St., 9-18.

TRIAL WITHOUT JURY.

An appeal lies regularly after exceptions filed to findings of fact on a trial without a jury under the Act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109, have been passed upon by the judge, and final judgment has been entered. Insurance Company vs. Keefer, 9—186.

An appeal taken before exceptions have been filed to the decision of the court in a case tried by the court without a jury will be quashed, unless the order of the court below is so drawn as to raise the presumption that the court intended the prothonotary to enter a final and absolute judgment forthwith, and to deny to the parties the right to file exceptions, and to a hearing thereon. Miller vs. Cambria County, 25-591.

The appellate court will not review findings of fact and conclusions of law in a case tried by the court below without a jury in accordance with the provisions of the Act of April 22, 1874, where no exceptions have been filed to the findings of fact or conclusions of law as required by that court. As the proceedings in such a case is out of the course of the common law, the statute must be strictly followed. Flerr vs. Reagan, 24-170.

CONSOLIDATION OF APPEALS-JOINT AND SEPARATE APPEALS.

It is error to combine in one appeal independent and collateral proceedings in which only two of several appellants are concerned, and an assignment of error and appeal so far as relating thereto will be dismissed. Stout vs. Quinn, 9-179; Pottsville Bank vs. Cake, 12-61.

Where three separate and distinct cases are tried in the Common Pleas at one time and before the same jury, but with no consolidation of the action, the records in the three cases cannot be brought up for review by a single appeal and writ. McCosh vs. Myers, 25-61.

It is improper practice to take one appeal where three indictments against the same person are tried before the same jury, but separate verdicts and judgments are entered. Com. vs. Schollenberger, 17–218.

Where a decree of the Orphans' Court directs distribution of testator's estate into five equal parts among his children, three of the children cannot take a joint appeal, and procure a review of the decree of the court below upon their distinct individual claims. Samson's Estate, 22-93.

Where several feigned issues, in each of which there is a different plaintiff, are tried before the same jury, separate appeals should be taken in each case. Kimmel vs. Johnson, 18—429.

An appeal from a decree of the Orphans' Court taken jointly by eleven individuals who claim to have been second cousins of the decedent, and her next of kin at the time of her death, but who do not claim in a joint right, and are not all even children of the same parents, will be quashed as the appellants have no standing to maintain a joint appeal. May's Estate, 22-77.

A husband and wife are not entitled to a joint appeal from a decree of the Orphans' Court, where it appears that the wife appealed as a distributee, and the husband as a disappointed claimant, and that the matters of complaint were entirely separate and distinct. Bitler's Estate, 30-84.

Parties making separate and distinct claims on a fund with no joint or common right in the claims, have no right to take a joint appeal from a decree disallowing the claims, Com. vs. Union Sur. & Guar. Co., 37— 167.

If one appeal is taken from two judgments of conviction on two indictments charging separate and distinct offenses, and no election is made to have the appeal confined to one of the cases, the appeal will be quashed. Com. vs. Pilnik (No. 1), 29-285.

CASES STATED-APPEALS IN.

An appeal from a judgment on a case stated will be quashed where there is nothing to show the existence of a pending suit. Dougherty vs. Cumberland County, 22-591.

Where the only allusion to the right to take an appeal is by way of recital in the body of a case state, and there is no expressed stipulation reserving the right, the appeal will be quashed. Morgan vs. Mercer County, 8-96.

LIQUOR LICENSES.

An appeal from an order of Quarter Sessions transferring a liquor license will be dismissed if it comes on to be heard after license expires, because it is impossible to grant relief. Reichard's License, 45-606.

Affidavits filed in support of an application for a rehearing of a petition for a liquor license, are not part of the record, and the allegation of the fact therein contained cannot be reviewed on appeal to impeach the record, or to rebut the presumption flowing therefrom that the court performed its duty by fixing a time at which all applicants had an opportunity

to be heard, and that the license was refused for a legal reason and not arbitrarily.

It does not necessarily follow that an applicant is entitled to a license as matter of right because no proof is given of the charges contained in a remonstrance.

The appellate court will not review the action of the Court of Quarter Sessions in refusing a liquor license where the record showed that the license was refused “after hearing." Chuya's License, 20—410.

The discretion of the Quarter Sessions once exercised in disposing of an application for a liquor license is not renewable, but the reasons given by the court for refusing the application are subject to review. Donoughue's License, 5-1.

Rule 9. In all cases where the record is not returned on the return day of the term at which the case is upon the list for argument, it shall be the duty of the prothonotary to enter a non pros., which shall not be taken off except by order of the Court. Supreme Court Rule 15.

An appellant must file the certificate provided for by the Act of June 24, 1895, Section 8, with the prothonotary of the Superior Court within a reasonable time. Neglect to do so will be considered cause for quashing the appeal. Ferree vs. Brandenburg Co., 1—21.

An appeal will be quashed where it appears that the signature of the trial judge was pasted on the record of the notes of evidence and charge, instead of the record itself being quashed. Yost vs. Clark, 25—144.

An appeal from an order refusing to open a judgment entered on an ejectment clause in a lease will be quashed where it appears that the lease contained a waiver of a right to appeal, and the contention of the defendant that the lease had expired and a different contract existed between the parties, is not established by anything appearing in the record. If in such a case the defendant relied upon what was contained in depositions to overcome the waiver, it was his duty, having ample time, to suggest a diminution of the record, and have the depositions brought up. Seagrave vs. Lacy, 28-586.

Where the transcript of the notes of testimony and charge are properly certified, approved and filed, but a carbon copy of the transcript without the judge's approval noted thereon, is sent up with the record, the appellant may, after motion to quash, bring up the original transcript with the approval of the court below, and file it with the record with the approval of the appellate court; and the result of such action will be the same as that which would have been reached by the more formal proceeding of suggestion of diminution of record. Ripka vs. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 36-517.

Rule 10. The prothonotary shall indorse on each appeal or writ of certiorari to remove proceedings a rule to appear and

plead at the return day of the writ; and in default of appearance when the cause is called for argument, and on proof of ten days' service of the rule on the appellee or his counsel below, the Court will proceed ex parte. Supreme Court Rule 16.

Rule 11. In all cases, where in pursuance of the judgment of this Court, a cause goes back to the court below for further proceedings, it shall be the duty of the prothonotary to certify and send back with the order, decree or judgment, a copy of the opinion of the Court which shall have been filed. Supreme Court Rule 17.

An erroneous sentence will be reversed without affecting a trial and conviction, and the case sent back for another sentence. Com. vs. Barge, II-164.

Rule 12. Motions for reargument or for any other purpose, after judgment, order or decree, shall be filed in the office of the prothonotary of this Court for the proper district, but the record shall not be retained in any appeal beyond the limit of ten days provided by the Act of May 19, 1897, unless upon an order from the Court or one of the judges thereof. Such motions must be accompanied with a copy of the opinion of the Court. Supreme Court Rule 18.

Rule 12 Modified. "And now, April 16, 1917, when a petition for a reargument has been filed the record in such case shall be retained by the prothonotary until the question involved has been decided by the Court."

Rule 13. Every judgment, order, or decree of this Court shall be noted by the prothonotary on the minute book kept at the place where the Court shall be in session, at the time, and, together with the opinion or opinions filed therewith, be forthwith transmitted to, and entered of record by the prothonotary in whose office the appeal was entered.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Rule 14. Each error relied on must be specified particularly and by itself. If any specification embrace more than one point, or refer to more than one bill of exceptions, or raise more than one distinct question, it shall be considered a waiver of all the errors so alleged. Supreme Court Rule 26.

ASSIGNMENTS TO BE TO ONE POINT OR ONE BILL ONLY.

Specifications of error which contain more than one point offend against Rule 14 of the Superior Court and will not be considered. Sloan vs. James 13-399; Reading Co. vs. Seip, 30-330; Ripka vs. Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 36–517; Graybill vs. Deitrick, 32-482; Com. vs. Swartz, 40— 370.

An assignment of error which embraces more than one point or refers to more than one bill of exceptions violates Rule 14. Commonwealth vs. Campbell, 31-9; Brainerd vs. Davis, 21-599; Erie City vs. Grant, 24— 109; Reading Co. vs. Seip, 30—330.

An appeal will be quashed when the only assignment of error embraces three distinct points. Loeweke vs. Lumberman's B. & L. Ass'n, 21-389.

ASSIGNMENTS MUST BE SELF-SUSTAINING.

Each assignment of error must be self-sustaining and embody everything necessary to its determination in the appellate court; a mere reference to a page elsewhere, on which some of the essential matters relating to the specifications appear, is not sufficient. Vanderslice vs. Donner, 26-319.

Assignments of error must be so complete in themselves as not to require reference to other parts of the record. Com. vs. Mackey, 34—1.

An assignment of error to the action of the court in overruling a demurrer to an indictment should indicate the grounds upon which the demurrer is based. Com. vs. Shoener, 25-526.

An assignment of error of the following form, "The learned court below erred in overruling the defendant's motion to quash the indictment," without more, violates this rule and will not be considered. Com. vs. Stambaugh, 22-386; see also Com. vs. Yocum, 37-237; Altoona vs. Morrison, 24-417.

An assignment of error to the granting an injunction is insufficient if it does not set forth the decree itself. McConahy vs. Western Allegheny R. R. Co., 31-215.

An assignment of error to rulings on exceptions to an auditor's report are not in accordance with the rule where they do not set forth the decree of the court, or the exceptions, or the rulings thereon. Prudential vs. Hildebrand, 34-249.

On an appeal from an order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, the order of the court below should be set forth in the assignment of error, and not merely counsel's summary of what the court did. Monongahela Nat. Gas Co. vs. Ellwood Nat. Gas & Oil Co., 43-619; and an exception must be taken and the order set forth in the assignment, Erie vs. Grant, 24-109; Chambers vs. McLean, 23551; Monongahela Nat. Gas Co. vs. Ellwood Nat. Gas & Oil Co., 43619; but see Brainerd vs. Davis, 21–599.