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.

DONALD L. SCHIMP v. WAYNE L. ALLAMAN (05/21/86)

filed: May 21, 1986.

DONALD L. SCHIMP, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JACOB L. SCHIMP AND DONALD L. SCHIMP, APPELLANT,
v.
WAYNE L. ALLAMAN



Appeal from the Order Entered January 23, 1985, in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County, Civil Division, at No. C.D. No. 283, 1983.

COUNSEL

Joseph J. Liotta, III, Franklin, for appellant.

Ralph L.S. Montana, Clarion, for appellee.

Cavanaugh, Brosky and Watkins, JJ. Cavanaugh, J., concurs in the result.

Author: Watkins

[ 353 Pa. Super. Page 233]

This is an appeal from an Order entered January 23, 1985, in the court of Common Pleas of Clarion County dismissing appellants' action to quiet title and confirming title to the land in appellee.

[ 353 Pa. Super. Page 234]

This action began when the appellants filed a complaint in Action to Quiet Title. The appellants alleged that Donald L. Schimp was the record title owner of a certain parcel of land located in Elk Township, Clarion County, Pennsylvania, and that he and his ancestors-predecessors in title -- were and had been in possession of the property and that the defendant-appellee, Wayne L. Allaman, disputed the title of a portion of the parcel. The complaint prayed for an order of court compelling the defendant to commence an action of ejectment within thirty (30) days as set forth in Pa.R.Civil Pro. 1066(b)(1). The lower court entered a Rule to Show Cause Why appellee should not be compelled to file an action of ejectment. Hearings were held thereon.

The court below entered the following order: "After hearing on this matter and considering the testimony and arguments of counsel, the court finds in favor of the Defendant, dismisses Plaintiff's action and confirms title to the land in question in Defendant."

The questions raised on appeal are summarized as follows:

1. Did the court below err in entering an order on the merits?

2. Did the court below err in failing to order the appellee to bring an action of ejectment?

At the outset, we will address the appellee's contention that this appeal is not properly before this Court. We find that the order of the court below was a final order and appealable. Seven Springs Farm Inc. v. King, 235 Pa. Superior Ct. 450, 344 ...


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.