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.

WILLIAM G. HAMILTON v. JOHN HARIDA AND SHARON HARIDA (07/25/80)

filed: July 25, 1980.

WILLIAM G. HAMILTON, T/D/B/A HAMILTON MAINTENANCE
v.
JOHN HARIDA AND SHARON HARIDA, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS, V. WOODLAWN BUILDERS, INC.



No. 951 April Term 1978, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Civil Div. at No. 192 Jan. Term 1977 A.D.

COUNSEL

Sanford S. Finder, Washington, for appellants.

Charles Bell, Washington, for Hamilton, appellees.

Thomas R. Solomich, Pittsburgh, for Woodlawn Builders, appellee.

Cercone, President Judge, and Price, Spaeth, Hester, Cavanaugh, Hoffman and Montgomery, JJ. Price, J., files a dissenting opinion in which Hoffman, J., joins.

Author: Spaeth

[ 280 Pa. Super. Page 48]

This is an appeal from an order striking an appeal from an arbitration award for failure to file sufficient recognizance.*fn1

On December 22, 1977, an arbitration panel entered an award against appellants in the amount of $1,146.49, with interest and costs. On January 9, 1978, appellants filed a timely appeal from the award and filed a cash bond of $100 with the prothonotary of the lower court; appellants also paid costs of $70.75 and the arbitrators' fee of $105.

Appellee filed a motion to strike the appeal, alleging that appellants' bond was insufficient. In support of its position, appellee cited the lower court's Local Rule L-806-9(a), which states in pertinent part:

A defendant-appellant shall file a recognizance bond, the condition of which shall be that if the plaintiff in the event of a suit shall obtain a judgment for a sum equal to or greater, or a judgment as or more favorable than the award of the Arbitrators, the defendant shall pay all costs of the appeal together with the sum or value of the property or things awarded by the Arbitrators.

This rule is modeled on the Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 715, § 30, as amended, 5 P.S. § 75 (Purdon's 1963) (repealed 1980), which provides:

If the defendant be the appellant, he shall, by himself, his agent or attorney, with one or more sufficient sureties, in the nature of special bail, be bound in recognizance to the plaintiff, the condition of which shall be, that if the ...


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.