Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

Daugherty et al. v. Daugherty et al., Appellant.

Equity — Practice — Rule 68 — Decree — Final Decree.

On a bill in equity in partition proceedings, a decree entered by the lower court cannot be considered as final. A decree nisi should first have been entered.

Under the provisions of Rule 68 of the Equity Rules, upon the filing of the adjudication, the Prothonotary shall enter a decree nisi and give notice to the parties, or their counsel of record, of the entry of such decree. On failure to follow such rule, the Superior Court will remit the record for reconsideration, and disposition in accordance with the proper practice.

Argued April 17, 1925.

PER CURIAM, April 28, 1925:

The record shows such material departure from equity Rules, 68 etc., that we are constrained at once to remit the record for reconsideration and disposition in accordance with those rules. The decree entered by the lower court cannot be considered as final. A decree nisi should have first been entered.

Decree reversed and record remitted with a procedendo. Costs of this appeal to abide final determination of the case.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DAUGHERTY ET AL. v. DAUGHERTY ET AL
(Apr 28, 1925)