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.

MENARDE v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (06/14/73)

decided: June 14, 1973.

MENARDE
v.
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, APPELLANT



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Nov. T., 1970, No. 1363, in case of Frank Menarde v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and Clarence Bridges.

COUNSEL

John Rogers Carroll, for appellant.

Bernard M. Gross, with him Gross & Sklar, for appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Spaeth, J.

Author: Spaeth

[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 537]

This is an appeal from an order quashing an appeal from an arbitration award.

Defendant-appellant took a timely appeal to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas from an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff-appellee in the amount of $3,750. Appellee moved to quash the appeal on two grounds: that there were certain errors in the certificate of readiness filed pursuant to Philadelphia Arbitration Rule 6; and that the appeal was taken in bad faith. The lower court granted the motion.

The "errors" in the certificate of readiness are that the certificate does not accurately portray for computer purposes the estimated trial time; the type of case, namely, Trespass-Motor Vehicle Accident (010); the name of the insurance carrier; nor does it indicate that it is an appeal from arbitration.

Appellant observes, and appellee concedes, that these errors are typographical only and created no prejudice to appellee.

In order to preserve the right to trial by jury it is necessary that the "right of appeal for the purpose of

[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 538]

    presenting the issue to a jury must not be burdened by the imposition of onerous conditions, restrictions or regulations which would make the right practically unavailable." Dickerson v. Hudson, 223 Pa. Superior Ct. 415, 421, 302 A.2d 444, 447 (1973). Accordingly, it is settled that technical non-prejudicial errors will not bar an appeal from arbitration. Thus, failure to pay all record costs is an inadequate ground on which to quash an appeal, Meta v. Yellow Cab Co., 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 469, 294 A.2d 898 (1972), as is failure to properly file a recognizance, Beth-Allen Sales Co. v. Hartford Insurance Group, 217 Pa. Superior Ct. 42, 268 A.2d 203 (1970), or failure to file a praecipe ordering the case down for trial, Caples v. Klugman, 202 Pa. Superior Ct. 517, 198 A.2d 342 (1964) (dictum).

"[W]here a party has made an honest effort to file his appeal in accordance with the statute, and has substantially complied with its requirements, justice will not ...


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.