Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMUNITY SPORTS v. OAKLAND OAKS (04/16/68)

decided: April 16, 1968.

COMMUNITY SPORTS, INC.
v.
OAKLAND OAKS, APPELLANT



Appeal from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1968, No. 2057, in case of Community Sports, Inc. v. The Oakland Oaks and Levern Tart.

COUNSEL

David M. Kaufman, with him Gerald S. Lesher, and Baskin, Boreman, Sachs & Craig, for appellants.

Milton W. Lamproplos, with him Edward J. Greene, C. Kent May, and Eckert, Seamans & Cherin, for appellee.

Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts.

Author: Roberts

[ 429 Pa. Page 412]

Plaintiff-appellee, Community Sports, Inc., instituted this proceeding in equity to enjoin defendant-appellant,

[ 429 Pa. Page 413]

Levern Tart, from playing professional basketball during the 1967-68 season for any team other than the one owned by Community Sports, it having been alleged that Tart was bound by contract to play for appellee's club and no other. Following the taking of testimony, on December 1, 1967, the chancellor filed an opinion, concluding with the following paragraph:

"Order of the Court.

And Now, December 1, 1967, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the corporate defendant herein is hereby enjoined from using Levern D. Tart in the 1967-68 Basketball Season, and that Levern D. Tart is hereby enjoined from playing professional basketball for any one other than Community Sports, Inc., the plaintiff herein."

Apparently relying on the fact that the chancellor, in his opinion, recited that he would not render a decree nisi, and also on the fact that the paragraph quoted above gives the surface impression of being a final decree, appellants immediately perfected the present appeal, even though no exceptions to the decree had been taken by appellants or adjudicated by the court en banc; furthermore, the decree had not been entered, upon praecipe, as a final decree by the prothonotary. Appellee now urges this Court to quash the appeal on the ground that, whatever the chancellor may have labelled it, the decree being appealed from must in fact be a decree nisi. There is, of course, no question that an appeal from a decree nisi must be quashed for it is an appeal from an interlocutory order. Taylor v. Buterbaugh, 421 Pa. 10, 218 A.2d 731 (1966).

Having studied the relevant docket entries in this case, however, we find it unnecessary to decide the true nature of the chancellor's decree since we are now convinced that the lower court has so completely ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.