Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of City of Philadelphia v. Rohm & Haas Company, Inc., No. 3442, July Term, 1971.
Louis C. Johanson, with him Henry Thomas Dolan and Fein, Criden, Johanson, Dolan & Morrissey, for petitioner.
S. Jay Sklar, Assistant City Solicitor, with him John Mattioni, Deputy City Solicitor, and Levy Anderson, City Solicitor, for City of Philadelphia.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt.
And Now, this 19th day of April, 1972, it appearing to the Court that there was a transposition error in the Supplemental Opinion and Order of this Court dated April 7, 1972, in the above-noted matter, it is hereby ordered that the Order of this Court dated April 7, 1972, is hereby vacated, and the Supplemental Opinion is amended to read as shown on the Supplemental Opinion attached hereto, and the Order is amended to read:
Based upon the discussion in the Supplemental Opinion, the Opinion of March 13, 1972 is affirmed as
entered; however, it is hereby ordered that Rohm & Haas Company, Inc. is granted leave to file an appeal in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County under the Philadelphia Municipal Court Act, Act of October 17, 1969, P.L. 259, 17 P.S. § 711.1 et seq., within thirty (30) days from the date hereof.
Supplemental Opinion and Order, April 19, 1972:
On March 13, 1972, this Court rendered an Opinion wherein we reversed the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and quashed the appeal of Rohm & Haas Company, Inc. (Rohm & Haas). In essence we held that Rohm & Haas had chosen the wrong statute (The Minor Judiciary Court Appeals Act, Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. , No. 355, 42 P.S. § 3001, et seq.) under which to file its appeal from a fine plus costs imposed by a Judge of the Philadelphia Municipal Court. We stated the proper statute was The Philadelphia Municipal Court Act, Act of October 17, 1969, P.L. 259, 17 P.S. § 711.1 et seq.
On March 22, 1972, Rohm & Haas filed with this Court a Petition To Modify Order in which it requested this Court to modify its ruling so as to permit Rohm & Haas to file, nunc pro tunc, an appeal under the proper statute.
The City of Philadelphia (City) on March 28, 1972, filed an Answer to the Petition in which it asked us to dismiss the Petition for the reason that there was ...