text:
    445 A.2d 211
    Commonwealth v. Greasel, Appellant.
    Submitted February 8,1982.
    Steven Kocherzat, for appellant;
    Edward J. Tocci, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence of the court below is affirmed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    445 A.2d 211
    Commonwealth v. Green, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Dec. 1,1982.
    Submitted September 11, 1980.
    Joseph A. Iovine, for appellant;
    Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 211
    Commonwealth v. Hackney, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 30, 1982.
    Submitted February 1, 1982.
    Douglas M. Johnson, Public Defender, for appellant;
    David M. McGlaughlin, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   The judgment of sentence imposed April 30, 1981 is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 212
    Commonwealth v. Handwerk, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 17, 1982.
    Argued May 6, 1981.
    Richard J. Orloski, for appellant;
    Michael E. Moyer, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, CAVANAUGH and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 212
    Commonwealth v. Harris, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 10, 1982.
    Submitted February 10, 1981.
    John H. Corbett, Jr., for appellant;
    Stella L. Smetanka, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and BROSKY and CIRILLO, JJ.
   Order of the lower court is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 212
    Commonwealth v. Johnson, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 10, 1982.
    Submitted September 11, 1980.
    Elaine De-Masse, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, WATKINS and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 213
    Commonwealth v. Robert Kellerman. Commonwealth v. Richard Kellerman.
    Argued February 8, 1982.
    Marc Rosenwasser, for appellant;
    Dara A. DeCourcy, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 213
    Commonwealth v. McNeil, Appellant.
    Submitted March 21,1980.
    Darryl A. Irwin, for appellant;
    Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, BROSKY and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 213
    Commonwealth v. Miller, Appellant.
    Submitted March 11, 1981.
    Thomas G. Klingensmith, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Michael H. Ranck, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before HESTER, CIRILLO and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 213
    Commonwealth v. Mohler, Appellant.
    Submitted September 10, 1981.
    Thomas G. Klingensmith, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Michael H. Ranck, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, POPOVICH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 214
    Commonwealth v. Motton, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied July 23, 1982.

      Submitted February 10, 1982.
    John H. Corbett, Public Defender, for appellant;
    Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 214
    Commonwealth v. Olexo, Jr., Appellant.
    Submitted February 1, 1982.
    Frank Robert Cori, for appellant;
    Richard B. Russell, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   The order of June 1, 1981 dismissing appellant’s Post Conviction Hearing Act petition is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 214
    Commonwealth v. Palinkas, Appellant.

      Argued February 18, 1981.
    Roseann B. Joseph, for appellant;
    Anthony S. Blasco, Assistant District Attorney, submitted a brief on behalf of Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before PRICE, MONTEMURO and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 215
    Commonwealth v. Patterson, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 10, 1982.
    Submitted September 30, 1981.
    John Halley, for appellant;
    Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, MONTEMURO and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 215
    Commonwealth v. Ragland, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied June 17, 1982.

      Argued November 12, 1980.
    John R. Orie, Jr., for appellant;
    Kathryn L. Simpson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 215
    Commonwealth v. Riley, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Aug. 30, 1982.
    Submitted November 5, 1981.
    Elaine DeMasse, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, POPOVICH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   The judgment of sentence is hereby affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 215
    Commonwealth v. Schlutker, Appellant.

      Submitted April 8, 1981.
    Thomas G. Klingensmith, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Michael H. Ranck, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

SPAETH, J., concurred in the result.


text:
    445 A.2d 216
    Commonwealth v. Stokes, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 13, 1982.
    Submitted September 10, 1981.
    Elaine DeMasse, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before HESTER, McEWEN and CIRILLO, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 216
    Commonwealth v. Sweeper a/k/a Green, Appellant.

      Argued May 6, 1981.
    John W. Nails, for appellant;
    Frank T. Hazel, District Attorney, submitted a brief on behalf of Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, CAVANAUGH and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 216
    Commonwealth v. Thomas, Appellant.
    Submitted September 11, 1980.
    John W. Packel, Chief, Appeals, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Nancy D. Wasser, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 217
    Commonwealth v. Tinsley, Appellant.

      Submitted September 9, 1981.
    Elaine DeMasse, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before HESTER, McEWEN and CIRILLO, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 217
    Commonwealth v. Woodruff, Appellant.
    Submitted June 13, 1980.
    Colie B. Chappelle, for appellant;
    Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before PRICE, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

LIPEZ, J., concurred in the result.


text:
    445 A.2d 217
    Commonwealth v. Zellner, Appellant.
    Submitted April 7, 1981.
    Robert E. Giering, for appellant;
    George Yatron, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

      Before SPAETH, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 217
    Com. ex rel. Crafton Borough v. Anthony Baumgartner, Appellant. Com. ex rel. Crafton Borough v. Karen Baumgartner, Appellant.
    Submitted October 13, 1981.
    Leonard A. Costa, Jr., for appellants;
    Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before HESTER, JOHNSON and MONTEMURO, JJ.
   Orders affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 218
    Cramsey, Appellant v. Cramsey.
    Submitted September 11, 1980.
    Ralph W. Litzenberger, for appellant;
    Charles W. Stopp, for appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and WICKERSHAM and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 218
    Evans v. City of Philadelphia, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied July 1, 1982.
    Argued February 2, 1982.
    Tyler Ewell Wren, Deputy City Solicitor, for appellant;
    Joseph F. Ricehiuti, for appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    446 A.2d 667
    Finnerty et al. v. Pesavento et ux., et al. Hunter et ux. v. Pesavento ex ux., et al. Appeal of Anthony Pesavento and Helen Pesavento, his wife, individually and trading and doing business as A. Pesavento Builder and Bridgmont, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation. Appeal of The Borough of Bridgeville, municipal corporation.
    Argued April 15, 1980.
    Edward M. Burr, for appellants (at Nos. 707, 708 and 709) and for appellees (at Nos. 750, 751 and 752);
    Richard A. Ferris, for appellant (at Nos. 750, 751 and 752);
    John A. DeMay, for Finnerty, appellee (at Nos. 707 and 752);
    William G. Shaffner, for Hunter, et al., appellees (at Nos. 707, 708, 709, 750, 751 and 752);
    Norman J. Cowie, for Basile, appellees (at No. 751).
    Before SPAETH, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Order of court affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 218
    In the Interest of McCormick, a minor. Appeal of Bonnie McCormick, a minor Commonwealth (Participating Party).
    Argued February 17, 1981.
    Marsha Levick, for appellant;
    Ronald T. Williamson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, participating party.
    Before PRICE, MONTEMURO and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

MONTEMURO, J., filed a memorandum concurring statement.


text:
    447 A.2d 636
    Kaskey v. City of Philadelphia et al., Appellant.
    Reargument Denied July 21, 1982.

      Argued September 9, 1980.
    Judith N. Dean, Deputy City Solicitor, for appellant;
    Donald E. Matusow, for appellee.
    Before BROSKY, WATKINS and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 219
    Lambert, Appellant v. Kerecz et al.
    Argued January 21, 1981.
    Daniel H. Shertzer, for appellant;
    Ronald E. Vicán, for appellees.
    Before HESTER, POPOVICH and DiSALLE, JJ.
   Judgment affirmed.

DiSALLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 219
    McGartland, Appellant v. McGartland.
    Argued February 8, 1982.
    Linda Carol Liechty, for appellant;
    Zeno Fritz, for appellee.
    Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 219
    Valenza v. Lawson, Appellant. Valenza, Appellant v. Lawson.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 3, 1982.
    Argued December 1, 1980.
    Daniel C. Barrish, for appellant (at No. 1363) and for appellee (at No. 1364);
    Marc D. Jonas, for appellants (at No. 1364) and for appellees (at No. 1363).
    Before SPAETH, BROSKY and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 219
    Ward et al. v. Baiersdorfer, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Aug. 20, 1982.
    Argued February 1, 1982.
    John D. Maida, for appellant;
    Parke H. Ulrich, for appellees.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   The final decree of the trial court entered August 21,1981 is affirmed.


text:
    April 16, 1982.
    445 A.2d 220
    Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Liebel, Appellant.
    Argued September 9,1981.
    Norman P. Zarwin, for appellant;
    John O’Rourke, for appellee.
    Before SPAETH, POPOVICH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   The order of the lower court is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 220
    Commonwealth v. Abner, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied July 1, 1982.
    Argued January 26, 1982.
    Nicholas J. Guarente, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Rex Rohland Gary, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WIEAND, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 220
    Commonwealth v. Arzonica, Appellant.
    Submitted December 5, 1980.
    John M. Herman, for appellant;
    George C. Yatron, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and HESTER and WIEAND, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 220
    Commonwealth v. Beams, Appellant.
    Argued March 24, 1981.
    Robert P. Hudock, for appellant;
    Gary E. Hartman, District Attorney, submitted a brief on behalf of Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before PRICE, WIEAND and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 221
    Commonwealth v. Canty, Appellant.

      Submitted January 26, 1982.
    Michael J. Byrne, for appellant;
    Mark S. Gurevitz, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WIEAND, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgments of sentence affirmed.

POPOVICH, J., filed a memorandum dissenting statement.


text:
    445 A.2d 221
    Commonwealth v. Eller, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 14, 1982.
    Argued June 22, 1981.
    Christopher M. Patterson, for appellant;
    Edward F. Browne, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before HESTER, CAVANAUGH and DiSALLE, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

DiSALLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 221
    Commonwealth v. Ferguson, Appellant.
    Submitted September 10, 1981.
    John C. Tylwalk, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    David J. Brightbill, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, POPOVICH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   The judgment of sentence is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 222
    Commonwealth v. Gurki, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Aug. 30, 1982.
    Argued May 22, 1981.
    Leonard I. Sharon, for appellant;
    Samuel J. Davis, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and MONTGOMERY and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

CERCONE, P. J., concurred in the result.


text:
    445 A.2d 222
    Commonwealth v. Herman, Appellant.
    Submitted June 24,1981.
    Barbara Orsburn Stump, for appellant;
    Sheryl Ann Dorney, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before PRICE, BECK and JOHNSON, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence dated April 9, 1980 is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 222
    Commonwealth v. Herron, Appellant.
    Submitted May 11, 1981.
    Stephen H. Serota, for appellant;
    Franklin L. Noel, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before MONTEMURO, HOFFMAN and VAN der YOORT, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 222
    Commonwealth v. Jay, Appellant.
    Submitted August 31, 1981.
    John P. Liekar, for appellant;
    Janet Moschetta, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, WIEAND and BECK, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 223
    Commonwealth v. Kefauver, Appellant.
    Submitted November 30,1981.
    John Joseph Moran, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Floyd Paul Jones, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, WIEAND and MONTEMURO, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 223
    Commonwealth v. Krall, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 28, 1982.

      Submitted December 2, 1980.
    Robert Sullivan, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    William L. Thurston, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before HESTER, CAVANAUGH and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Judgments of sentence and orders affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 223
    Commonwealth v. Lee, Appellant.
    Submitted November 30, 1981.
    John M. Glace, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    William A. Behe, Deputy District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, WIEAND and MONTEMURO, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 224
    Commonwealth v. McCoy, Appellant.

      Submitted October 20,1981..
    Kenneth S. Gallant, for appellant;
    Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BECK, WATKINS and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 224
    Commonwealth v. Mikolaicki, Appellant.
    Submitted September 10, 1981.
    Albert J. Flora, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Chester B. Muroski, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, POPOVICH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   The judgment of sentence is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 224
    Commonwealth v. Miller, Appellant.

      Submitted January 27, 1982.
    Abram Frank Reynolds, for appellant;
    Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WIEAND, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

POPOVICH, J., concurred in the result.


text:
    445 A.2d 224
    Commonwealth v. Morrow, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 13, 1982.
    Submitted January 25, 1982.
    Michael G. Defino, for appellant;
    Ann Carol Lebowitz, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WIEAND, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 225
    Commonwealth v. Schminkey, Appellant.
    Submitted April 8, 1981.

      Christopher J. Foust, for appellant;
    James J. Rosini, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 225
    Commonwealth v. Shannon, Appellant.
    Submitted February 25, 1981.
    Jonathan Blum, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Chester B. Muroski, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, WIEAND and JOHNSON, JJ.
   Judgments of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 225
    Commonwealth v. Strong, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 9, 1982.
    Submitted December 1,1981.
    William C. Cramer, for appellant;
    John R. Walker, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

      Before BROSKY, WIEAND and MONTEMURO, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 226
    Commonwealth v. Topa, Appellant.
    Submitted October 6,1981.
    John J. Cerra, for appellant;
    Ernest D. Preate, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, McEWEN and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 226
    Commonwealth v. Trerotola, Appellant.
    Submitted October 6, 1981.
    Elaine DeMasse, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, McEWEN and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 226
    Commonwealth v. White, Appellant.
    Submitted February 10, 1981.
    Robert W. McFate, for appellant;
    F. Walter Bloom, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and BROSKY and CIRILLO, JJ.
   Order of the lower court is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 226
    Com. ex rel. Knouss v. Knouss. Appeal of Frederick A. Knouss.
    Argued January 27, 1982.
    David A. Scholl, for appellant;
    Quintes D. Taglioli, for appellee.
    Before WIEAND, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 227
    Com. ex rel. Monaghan. Appeal of Monaghan.

      Submitted January 27,1982.
    Alfred P. Antonelli, for appellant;
    James C. Hogan, for appellee.
    Before WIEAND, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 227
    Conemaugh Coal etc. v. Demag Baumaschinen. Appeal of Demag Baumaschinen GmbH and Demag Material Handling Corp.
    Argued May 21, 1981.
    David G. Ries, for Baumaschinen, appellant;
    Kim R. Bobrowsky, for Conemaugh, appellees;
    Richard C. Lane, for Pittsburgh Contractors, appellee;
    Carl Harvison, for Caterpillar Tractor, participating party.
    Before HESTER, POPOVICH and DiSALLE, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

DiSALLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 227
    DiFebo a/k/a Hine v. DiFebo, Appellant. DiFebo a/k/a James v. DiFebo, Appellant.

      Submitted May 5, 1981.
    Clement E. Kisailus, for appellant;
    Robert T. Panowicz, for appellee at No. 1812;
    Robert Nowalis, for appellee at No. 1813.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and SPAETH and CAVA-NAUGH, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 228
    John Hancock Ins. v. Manolios, Appellant. John Hancock Mutual v. Belvedere, Appellant.
    Submitted February 10, 1982.
    James R. Barozzini, for appellants;
    Paul K. Geer, for appellee.
    Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Orders affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 228
    Patarlis et al., Appellants v. Danko et al.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 14, 1982.
    Argued May 21, 1981.
    Theodore Goldberg, for appellants;
    John A. Robb, Jr., for appellees.

      Before HESTER, POPOVICH and DiSALLE, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

DiSALLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 228
    Self et al., Appellants v. Zinberg et al.
    Argued May 12, 1981.
    Edward C. Harkin, for appellants;
    Joel Paul Fishbein, for appellees.
    Before MONTEMURO, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 228
    Turner, Appellant v. Bruce.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 14, 1982.
    Argued March 23, 1981.
    John J. Krafsig, Jr., for appellant;
    Howard B. Krug, for appellee.
    Before PRICE, WIEAND and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    April 23, 1982.
    445 A.2d 229
    Commonwealth v. Althouse, Appellant.
    Submitted June 3, 1981.
    Charles B. Coleman, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    George Yatron, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before ROWLEY, McEWEN and MONTEMURO, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 229
    Commonwealth v. Baldwin, Appellant.
    Submitted February 1, 1982.
    Manuel Grife, for appellant;
    Jane Cutler Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   The order of May 6, 1981 denying appellant’s petition for relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 229
    Commonwealth v. Berry, Appellant.
    Argued January 18, 1982.
    David D. Morrison, for appellant;
    Andrew S. Kovach, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before JOHNSON, WATKINS and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 230
    Commonwealth v. Bixler, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 10, 1982.
    Submitted February 1, 1982.
    Gary Spohn Fronheiser, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    George C. Yatron, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 230
    Commonwealth v. Chew, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied July 21, 1982.
    Submitted December 5, 1980.
    John W. Packel, Chief, Appeals, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and HESTER and WIEAND, JJ.
   The judgment of sentence of the lower court is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 230
    Commonwealth v. Darras, Appellant.
    Argued February 2, 1982.
    Jerome R. Smith, for appellant;
    George C. Yatron,- District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 230
    Commonwealth v. Gray, Appellant.
    Submitted April 14, 1981.
    John Halley, for appellant;
    Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, CIRILLO and JOHNSON, JJ.
   Affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 231
    Commonwealth v. Hamm, Jr., Appellant. Commonwealth v. Hamm, Appellant.
    Submitted February 25, 1981.
    Marsha V. Mills, Public Defender, for appellants;
    W. Marshall Dawsey, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, WIEAND and JOHNSON, JJ.
   The order of July 8, 1980, is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 231
    Commonwealth v. Hughes, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 14, 1982.
    Submitted February 1, 1982.
    Frank Robert Cori, for appellant;
    Richard B. Russell, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 231
    Commonwealth v. Johnson, Appellant.
    Argued April 1,1981.
    David P. Trulli, for appellant;
    Eliot Present, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth appellee.
    Before HESTER, CAVANAUGH and JOHNSON, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence dated October 31, 1979 is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 232
    Commonwealth v. Kelly, Appellant.

      Submitted November 30, 1981.
    Patrick A. Kelly, appellant, in propria persona;
    William A. Behe, Deputy District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, WIEAND and MONTEMURO, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 232
    Commonwealth v. Lopez, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 3, 1982.
    Submitted December 5, 1980.
    Elaine DeMasse, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and HESTER and WIEAND, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence of the lower court is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 232
    Commonwealth v. Marshall, Appellant.

      Argued September 1, 1981.
    Raymond Bogarty, for appellant;
    James P. Epstein, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, WIEAND and BECK, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 232
    Commonwealth v. Otto, Appellant.
    Submitted February 2, 1982.
    Gary Spohn Fronheiser, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    George C. Yatron, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 233
    Commonwealth v. Pickert, Appellant.
    Submitted June 13, 1980.
    John W. Packel, Chief, Appeals, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

      Before PRICE, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 233
    Commonwealth v. Poplar, Appellant.
    Argued February 2, 1982.
    Mary McNeill Greenwell, for appellant;
    Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 233
    Commonwealth v. Powell, Appellant.
    Argued September 8, 1980.
    Janet W. Mason, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Donald A. Mancini, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 234
    Commonwealth v. Price, Appellant.
    Argued November 9, 1981.
    Paul R. Gettleman, for appellant;
    John L. Brown, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BECK, JOHNSON and POPOVICH, JJ.
   The order entered March 21, 1981 is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 234
    Commonwealth v. Tolbert, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied June 22, 1982.
    Argued February 1, 1981.
    Dennis J. Cogan, for appellant;
    Nancy Dena Wasser, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 234
    Commonwealth v. Vasquez, Appellant.
    Argued September 29, 1981.
    Dante Bertani, for appellant;
    Timothy J. Geary, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, MONTEMURO and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Orders affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 234
    Commonwealth v. Weathersby, Appellant.
    Submitted October 21, 1981.
    Peter V. Marks, Sr., for appellant;
    Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BECK, WATKINS and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   Order and judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 235
    Commonwealth v. Weaver, Appellant.
    Submitted April 1, 1981.
    Thomas G. Klingensmith, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Michael H. Ranck, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and HESTER and JOHNSON, JJ.
   The judgment of sentence of the lower court is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 235
    Commonwealth v. White, Appellant.
    Submitted January 27, 1981.
    Gerald Jay Pomerantz, for appellant;
    Gaele McLaughlin Bart-hold, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, JOHNSON and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 235
    Commonwealth v. Wilson, Appellant.
    Submitted October 21, 1981.
    Vincent P. DiFabio, for appellant;
    Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BECK, WATKINS and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

BECK, J., concurred in the result.


text:
    445 A.2d 236
    Commonwealth v. Yalenti, Appellant.
    Argued February 9, 1982.
    Samuel Yalenti, appellant, in propria persona;
    Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, submitted a brief on behalf of Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 236
    Commonwealth ex rel. Caldwell v. Delmar, Appellant.
    Argued January 18, 1982.
    Owen Nash, for appellant;
    Robert J. Levis, for appellee.
    Before JOHNSON, WATKINS and LIPEZ, JJ.
   The order of June 22, 1981 is modified, only to the extent of reducing the outstanding arrearages from $1850.00 to $1610.00, and as so modified, is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 236
    Dodge, Appellant v. Mariner et al.
    Argued March 17, 1981.
    Stephen P. McCloskey, for appellant;
    Stephen D. Marriner, Jr., for appellees.
    Before PRICE, JOHNSON and MONTEMURO, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 236
    Green, Appellant v. Long.

      Submitted February 10, 1982.
    Sylvester A. Beozzo, for appellant;
    William D. Long, appellee, in propria persona.
    Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Appeal quashed.


text:
    445 A.2d 237
    Letcher v. Letcher, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Aug. 2, 1982.
    Argued February 2, 1982.
    Frank Robert Cori, for appellant;
    William R. Mosolino, for appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Final decree affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 237
    Post Executive Estate Strawbridge, Appellant v. Haefner et al.
    Submitted December 5, 1980.
    Gordon C. Post, Jr., for appellant in propria persona;
    John P. Campana, for appellees.

      Before CERCONE, P. J. and HESTER and WIEAND, JJ.
   The order of the lower court is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 237
    Sadowski, Appellant v. Sadowski.
    Argued March 17,1982.
    Bernard S. Shire for appellant;
    Ernest Preece Dehaas, for appellee.
    Before SPAETH, JOHNSON and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   The order of September 24, 1981 is hereby modified to delete the words “with prejudice,” and, as modified, is affirmed.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 706.


text:
    445 A.2d 237
    Sommers, etc. v. Uber, Appellant.
    Argued April 13, 1981.
    Lee C. McCandless, for appellant;
    Alexander H. Lindsay, Jr., for appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, JOHNSON and SHERTZ, JJ.
   Affirmed.

SHERTZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 238
    Truck v. Truck, Appellant.
    Submitted February 2, 1982.
    Joseph A. Zane, for appellant;
    Samuel A. Kline, for appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Decree affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 238
    Wiley v. York Realty Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.
    Argued June 24, 1981.
    Morrison B. Williams, for appellant;
    Stephen P. Linebaugh, for appellees.
    Before PRICE, JOHNSON and SHERTZ, JJ.
   The order dated August 21, 1980 is affirmed.

Decision was rendered prior to SHERTZ, J., leaving the bench of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.


text:
    April 30, 1982.
    445 A.2d 238
    Beckley v. First Valley Bank, Appellant v. Beckley.
    Argued January 27, 1982.
    Earl T. Britt, for appellant;
    Richard J. Haber, Assistant District Attorney, for appellees.
    Before WIEAND, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Order of the court below is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 239
    Biczel v. Philadelphia Gas Works, Appellant v. American Standard.
    Argued February 3, 1982.
    Robert F. Fortin, for appellant;
    William Boyd Spencer, for appellees.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 239
    Blakney, Appellant v. School District of Philadelphia.

      Argued September 10, 1981.
    Belton Richard Blankey, appellant in propria persona;
    Robert Nuttall, for appellee.
    Before HESTER, McEWEN and SHERTZ, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

SHERTZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 239
    Commonwealth v. Atwell, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Aug. 20, 1982.
    Argued April 15, 1980.
    Timothy R. Bonner, for appellant;
    Ross E. Cardas, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before PRICE, BROSKY and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   The judgment of sentence is affirmed on the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable Albert E. Acker.


text:
    445 A.2d 239
    Commonwealth v. Baylor, Jr., Appellant.

      Submitted February 8, 1982.
    Richard M. Serbin, for appellant;
    Jolene M. Grubb, for appellee.
    Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

POPOVICH, J., concurred in the result.


text:
    445 A.2d 240
    Commonwealth v. Brown, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Aug. 23, 1982.
    Submitted March 24, 1982.
    Arthur K. Dils, for appellant;
    William A. Behe, Deputy District Attorney for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and WATKINS, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 240
    Commonwealth v. Brown, Jr., Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 15, 1982.

      Submitted December 16, 1981.
    Raymond R. Williams, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Rex R. Gary, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, BECK and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 240
    Commonwealth v. Caswell, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Aug. 23, 1982.
    Submitted November 6, 1981.
    John Mercuri, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Ernest D. Preate, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, BROSKY and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 241
    Commonwealth v. Coleman a/k/a Goodman, Appellant.

      Argued May 4, 1981.
    Daniel M. Preminger, for appellant;
    Nancy D. Wasser, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and SPAETH and CAVA-NAUGH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

SPAETH, J., concurred in the result.


text:
    445 A.2d 241
    Commonwealth v. Dennis, Appellant.
    Submitted February 24,1982.
    Joseph F. Sklarosky, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Chester B. Muroski, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, McEWEN and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 241
    Commonwealth v. Downs, Appellant.

      Argued September 10, 1981.
    Dennis D. Brogan, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Robert P. Brendza, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, POPOVICH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   The order of the court is hereby affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 241
    Commonwealth v. Eaton, Appellant.
    Submitted February 10, 1982.
    John L. Doherty, for appellant;
    Richard A. Hernán, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 242
    Commonwealth v. Freeman, Appellant.
    Submitted March 24, 1982.
    Arthur K. Dils, for appellant;
    William A. Behe, Deputy District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

      Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and WATKINS, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 242
    Commonwealth v. Hastings, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Granted Sept. 13, 1982.
    Argued March 25, 1981.
    Michael Thomas Hudock, for appellant;
    Graham C. Showalter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before PRICE, WIEAND and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 242
    Commonwealth v. Haynes a/k/a Harris, Appellant.
    Submitted November 17,1981.
    John F. Raimondi, for appellant;
    Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and McEWEN and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    446 A.2d 667
    Commonwealth v. Hodges, Appellant.
    Reargument Denied June 23, 1982.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 16,1982.
    Submitted September 9,1981.
    Elaine DeMasse, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, POPOVICH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   The judgment of sentence is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 242
    Commonwealth v. Hughes, Appellant.
    Submitted March 30, 1981.
    Lee S. Dennison, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    Gailey C. Keller, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and HESTER and JOHNSON, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 243
    Commonwealth v. Ilgin, Appellant.
    Argued June 23, 1981.
    Steven V. Manbeck, Public Defender, for appellant;
    Michael Johnston, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before PRICE, JOHNSON and SHERTZ, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

SHERTZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 243
    Commonwealth v. Lee, Appellant.
    Submitted June 3, 1981.
    Emmanuel Lee, appellant, in propria persona;
    Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before ROWLEY, McEWEN and MONTEMURO, JJ.
   Order affirmed:


text:
    445 A.2d 243
    Commonwealth v. Matalavage, Appellant.
    Submitted February 22, 1982.
    Douglas M. Johnson, Public Defender, for appellant;
    Ronald Thomas Williamson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, McEWEN and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 244
    Commonwealth v. McManus, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Dec. 6,1982.
    Argued June 23, 1981.
    Edward Reif, for appellant;
    Michele G. Lehr, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before HESTER, CAVANAUGH and DiSALLE, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

DiSALLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 244
    Commonwealth v. Richardson, Appellant.
    Argued September 9, 1981.
    J. Hugh O’Donnell, for appellant;
    Deborah Fox, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before HESTER, McEWEN and SHERTZ, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

SHERTZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 244
    Commonwealth v. Schaeffer, Appellant.
    Submitted January 27, 1982.
    James A. Consoli, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    George C. Yatron, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WIEAND, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 244
    Commonwealth v. Shockney, Appellant.
    Submitted March 24,1982.
    Ronald Perry, for appellant;
    John C. Uhler, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and WATKINS, JJ.
   Judgments of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 245
    Commonwealth v. Sleighter, Appellant.
    Argued December 4, 1980.
    Charles A. Glackin, for appellant;
    Edgar B. Bayley, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before HESTER, CAVANAUGH and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

CAVANAUGH, J., concurred in the result.


text:
    445 A.2d 245
    Commonwealth v. Stewart, Appellant.
    Argued November 9, 1981.
    Peter H. Shaffer, for appellant;
    Robert W. Hawk, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BECK, JOHNSON and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 245
    Commonwealth v. Wakefield, Appellant.
    Submitted November 4, 1981.
    Arthur K. Dils, for appellant;
    Edgar B. Bayley, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, BECK and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 246
    Commonwealth v. Walker, Appellant.

      Submitted November 5, 1981.
    Dennis J. Cogan, for appellant;
    Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BROSKY, POPOVICH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 246
    Commonwealth v. White, Appellant.
    Submitted March 10, 1982.
    Karl Baker, for appellant;
    Jane Cutler Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, CIRILLO and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 246
    Commonwealth v. Young, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Oct. 1, 1982.

      Submitted February 3, 1982.
    Gary Spohn Fronheiser, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;
    George C. Yatron, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 246
    Commonwealth v. Zyra, Appellant.
    Argued November 9,1981.
    Paul Gettleman, for appellant;
    Stella L. Smetanka, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before BECK, JOHNSON and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Judgment of sentence affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 247
    Cornish etc., Appellant, v. Spang Stores Inc., etc.
    Argued September 29, 1981.
    Howard T. Gilfillan, for appellant;
    Lee Piatt, for appellee.

      Before CAVANAUGH, MONTEMURO and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 247
    Crumity, Appellant, v. Sheppard.
    Argued November 12, 1980.
    Frances A. Frederick, for appellant;
    No appearance entered nor briefs submitted for appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, WATKINS and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   Affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 247
    Dalessandro v. Silver Springs Golf Club et al. Appeal of Arthur Dalessandro as parent and natural guardian of David Dalessandro, a minor in his own right.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Oct. 8, 1982.
    Argued June 24, 1981.
    Keith S. Erbstein, for appellant;
    William A. Addams, for Silver Springs, appellee;
    Ronald R. Rutenberg, for Fazio, appellee;
    Grace R. Schuyler, for Harvey, appellee.
    Before HESTER, CAVANAUGH and DiSALLE, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

DiSALLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 248
    Damirgian v. Damirgian, Appellant.
    Argued September 9, 1981.
    Irwin Paul, for appellant;
    Judith S. Eden, for appellee.
    Before HESTER, McEWEN and SHERTZ, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

SHERTZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 248
    Davis, Appellants v. Szkolnicki.
    Argued June 1, 1981.
    David P. Brown, III, for appellants;
    Clarence D. Bell, Jr., for appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, MONTEMURO and SHERTZ, JJ.
   Affirmed.

SHERTZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 248
    Franklin etc., et al., Appellants v. Keystone Insurance Co.
    Argued September 10, 1980.
    Marshall E. Kresman, for appellants;
    John G. Jenemann, for appellee.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and WICKERSHAM and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

VAN der VOORT, J., filed a memorandum dissenting statement.


text:
    445 A.2d 248
    Harding et al., Appellants v. William D. Peart & Sig. Del.
    Argued November 17, 1981.
    Fred B. Fromhold, for appellants;
    Edward F. Kane, for appellees.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and McEWEN and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   Affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 249
    Hummel’s Wharf Fire Co., Appellant v. Leitner.
    Argued June 23, 1981.
    Marvin J. Rudnitsky, for appellant;
    Thomas C. Clark, did not file a brief on behalf of appellee.
    Before PRICE, JOHNSON and SHERTZ, JJ.
   The order dated April 29, 1980 is affirmed on the comprehensive opinion of President Judge Wilson.

SHERTZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    445 A.2d 249
    McGovern, etc., Appellant v. Shackett, et al.
    Argued November 5, 1981.
    Walter D. Campbell, for appellant;
    William T. MacMinn, for Shackett, appellee;
    Joshua Z. Goldblum, for McMahon, appellees.
    Before SPAETH, BECK and LIPEZ, JJ.
   The order of the lower court is hereby affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 249
    William C. Jenkins, etc., Appellant v. Inter-Ocean Insurance Co., etc. Gloria Jenkins, Appellant v. Inter-Ocean Insurance Co., etc.
    Argued November 12, 1980.
    Samuel J. Goldstein, for appellants;
    Paul W. Roman, Jr., for appellees.
    Before CAVANAUGH, WATKINS and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   Affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 250
    McGreehan, Appellant v. Schrader Florists, et al.
    Argued March 15, 1982.
    Myron I. Markovitz, for appellant;
    James Clark Munro, for appellee.
    Before SPAETH, JOHNSON and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   The judgment of the court is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 250
    Preedit et ux. v. Vitale et ux., Appellants.
    Argued April 15,1981.
    Mario P. Restifo, for appellants;
    Robert N. Spaeder, for appellees.
    Before CAVANAUGH, JOHNSON and SHERTZ, JJ.
   Judgment affirmed.

CAVANAUGH, J., filed a memorandum dissenting opinion.

Decision was rendered prior to SHERTZ, J., leaving the bench of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.


text:
    445 A.2d 250
    Price, etc. v. J. M. Fein, et al. Appeal of J. M. Fein and I. L. Kone, Inc.
    Argued September 9, 1980.
    James Markam, for appellant;
    Nicholas A. Leonard, for Price, appellee;
    Glen W. Snyder, for Colonial, appellee;
    Roberta Griffin Mason, for Philadelphia National, appellee.
    Before SPAETH, HESTER and CAVANAUGH, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 250
    Provident Nat’l Bank v. Straub, Jr., Appellant.
    Argued October 6, 1981.
    John I. McMahon, for appellant;
    D. Barry Pritchard, Jr., for appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, McEWEN and POPOVICH, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

McEWEN, J., filed a memorandum dissenting opinion.


text:
    445 A.2d 251
    Saracina, Appellant v. Colonial Life Insurance Co. of America.
    Argued December 9, 1981.
    Louise Herzl-Betz, for appellant;
    Jeffrey G. Weil, for appellee.
    Before SPAETH, MONTGOMERY and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 251
    Senko v. Senko, Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Nov. 5,1982.

      Argued March 15, 1982.
    John J. Dean, for appellant;
    John W. Jordan, IV, for appellee.
    Before SPAETH, JOHNSON and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   The order of the court is affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 251
    Swemley v. Newcomer, Appellants.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied July 19, 1982.
    Argued March 23, 1981.
    Dennis A. Alessi, for appellants;
    Allen H. Smith, for appellee.
    Before PRICE, WIEAND and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Order affirmed.


text:
    445 A.2d 251
    Trenwith, et al. v. Civello, et al., Appellants.
    Argued June 12, 1980.
    William W. Spalding, for appellants;
    Alvin Freiberg, for appellees.
    Before HESTER, CAVANAUGH and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

HESTER, J. concurred in the result.


text:
    445 A.2d 252
    Vector Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., Appellant.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Nov. 2, 1982.
    Argued November 10, 1980.
    Avrum Levicoff, for appellant;
    Joseph W. Conway, for appellee.
    Before SPAETH, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.
   Order affirmed.

SPAETH, J., concurred in the result.

LIPEZ, J., filed a memorandum dissenting statement.


text:
    445 A.2d 252
    Zacharias, Appellant v. Zacharias.
    Argued May 22, 1981.
    James W. Daub, for appellant;
    William Zacharias, for appellee, in propria persona.
    Before CERCONE, P. J., and MONTGOMERY and VAN der VOORT, JJ.
   Order affirmed on the opinion of Judge Lawrence W. Kaplan of the court below.

MONTGOMERY, J., concurred in the result.


author: Rice, P. J.,

text:
    Henry H. Sheip et al., trading, etc., Appellants, v. Price, Page & Co.

      Practice, G. P. — Discretion to quash writ — Act of 1869.
    The court has discretionary power to quash a writ of attachment under the act of 1869 upon extraneous evidence that the affidavit and bond were not filed upon the day the record shows they were filed.

      Record imports verity — When it may be supplied or corrected.

    A record imports absolute verity and, as a general rule, it should be so regarded in practice. It is not on every occasion that resort should be permitted to affidavit and depositions to contradict the record or explain it away. When it is lost or destroyed or error has intervened and the due administration of justice demands that it should be supplied, amended or reformed, it can and should be done in the appropriate and orderly way.

      Records — Power of court to control — Presumption of verity.

    Every court of record is the guardian and judge of its own records, it is clothed with full power to control and inquire into them and set them right if incorrect, but when a court considers a record without attempting to reform same in an appropriate and orderly way, every presumption of verity must be accorded such record and apparent alterations and interlineations made by the prothonotary should be construed as mistakes corrected as soon as made rather than as a tampering with a record, w'hich would be unlawful.

      Practice, G. P. — Records not to be impeached inferentially.

    It is error to quash a writ of attachment, on allegations impeaching a record, by an affidavit alleging alterations thereof, while permitting the record to stand. The proper practice would be for the court to inquire, as it had power to do, into the impeachment of the record and amend or correct it if tampered with, and upon the record if amended quash the writ if. warranted. A record may not be inferentially impeached.
    Argued Oct. 13, 1896.
    Appeal, No. 96, Nov,. T., 1896, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1896, No. 343, making absolute rule to quash attachment.
    Before Rice, P. J., Willard, Wickham, Beaver, Reeder, Orlady and Smith, JJ.
    Reversed.
    Attachment under act of March, 1869. Rule to quash attachment.
    The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of the Superior Court.

      Error assigned was the order of the court making rule to quash the attachment absolute.

      W. Horace Hepburn, for appellants.
    It is respectfully submitted that a public record, such as the prothonotary’s record in this case, is not open to such an attack. Such a record is conclusive and cannot be affected by extraneous evidence. This is a settled principle in this state, as will be seen by reference to the following authorities; MacGeorge v. Chemical Mfg. Co., 141 Pa. 575; Bennethum v. Bowers, 133 Pa. 332; Cumberland Co. v. Boyd, 113 Pa. 52; Iron Works v. Hutchinson, 101 Pa. 359 ; Kleckner v. Lehigh Co., 6 Wh. 66; Zion Church v. St. Peter’s Church, 5 W. & S. 215; Crawford v. Stewart, 38 Pa. 34. That a defendant may object to defects in the process, its teste or its return before appearance, but not afterwards, has been repeatedly decided in this state, as will be seen by reference to the following leading authorities : MacGeorge v. Chemical Company, 141 Pa. 575; Zion Church v. St. Peter’s Church, 5 W. & S. 215 ; Sherer v. Easton Bank, 33 Pa. 138; Dyer v. Walker, 40 Pa. 157-160; Kemerrer v. Markle, 3 Pa. Dist. Repts. 652; 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 182, etc.

      E. Clinton Rhoads and. I. Hazleton Mirkil, for appellees.
    November 16, 1896:
   Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

This is an appeal from an order making absolute a rule to show cause why an attachment issued against the defendants under the act of March 17, 1869, (P. L. 9) should not be quashed. The rule was granted upon the application of the defendants and the trustee of certain judgment creditors supported by affidavit of the trustee that, although the writ purported to have been issued on the 29th day of February, 1896, the surety on the bond was not approved, and the affidavit and bond were not filed until March 2, 1896, “ as by reference to the record more fully appears,” and “ that while the said record in said case has been changed so as to make it appear that said affidavit was filed and said surety approved and said bond was filed on the 29th day of February, 1896, yet to deponent’s personal knowledge the contrary is true and the change of date upon the record is clearly apparent.” No depositions were taken in support of these allegations.

The writ bears teste February 29, 1896, and shows no alteration. The continuance docket shows that the affidavit was filed and the writ issued on February 29, 1896. The praecipe for the writ bears date February 29, 1896, but the indorsement thereon as well as on the affidavit and bond is as follows :

Feb. 29,
“ Filed Meítr-2, 1896 Hunter pro Prothy.” The jurat to the affidavit for attachment is as follows: Affirmed and subscribed
February,
before me this 29 day of February 1896 :
“ Jas. W. Fletcher,
“ Deputy Prothonotary.”

The jurat to the affidavit of the surety on the bond is as follows : Subscribed and affirmed before me M-areh — 2, Feb. 29, 1896:

“ Jas. W. Fletcher,
“ Dep. Prothonotary.”

The number of the action indorsed on the prsecipe appears to have been first written 381, March T., 1896, and then changed to 343, March T., 1896. No evidence was given to show when, or by whom, these changes of the dates and number originally written or stamped on the papers were made.

In the absence of a rule of court, such as is in force in some of the counties of the commonwealth, the plaintiff’s omission to file a counter affidavit cannot be construed as an admission of the facts alleged in the defendant’s affidavit. Nor can we assent to the proposition, that as the court has discretionary-power to quash a writ of attachment under the act of 1869 upon extraneous evidence that the affidavit and bond were not filed upon the day the record shows they were filed, therefore it is to be presumed, contrary to the fact, that the court had before it such evidence. There is no analogy between quashing a writ upon such grounds and granting summary relief in foreign attachment, where the defendant is a resident or the property is not subject to foreign attachment, or setting aside a sheriff’s sale. In the latter cases no contradiction of the record is involved, while in the case in hand there is. “In theory the record imports absolute verity, and as a general rule, it should be so regarded in practice. It is not on every occasion that resort should be permitted to affidavits and depositions to contradict the record or explain it away. When it is lost, or destroyed or error has intervened, and the due administration of justice requires that it should be supplied, amended or reformed, it can and should be done in the appropriate and orderly way: ” Rice v. Constein, 89 Pa. 477. So it may be remarked here, if there was an unauthorized alteration of the record, the court had ample power to correct and restore it to its original condition, and then the defendants would have been in a position to ask that the writ be quashed without impeachment of the record. But whatever, in general, may be the power of the court to quash writs upon extraneous evidence of the falsity of the record of some precedent action, it is manifest that this particular case came before the court to be determined by the record alone. Both parties, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, appealed to the record to sustain their respective contentions. No depositions having been taken and it not being claimed, even, that the court had before it any proof of the facts except what the record discloses, it is to be presumed that it came to the conclusion it did from an inspection of the record, and not from a mere ex parte affidavit, which had served its purpose when the rule was granted, nor from any personal recollection of the judges concerning the facts recorded. The case comes before us in the same way, and we have the same judicial knowledge of the facts recorded as the court below. The interpretation of the record is a question of law and not a mere matter of discretion. If the record shows that the affidavit and bond were filed and the writ was issued on February 29, and that the latter was served on the defendant, then, without correcting the record, it was error to quash the writ; and the action of the court below, being in the nature of a final judgment, is reviewable: Sharpless v. Ziegler, 92 Pa. 467; Biddle v. Black, 99 Pa. 380; Pontius v. Nesbit, 40 Pa. 309; Grieb v. Kuttner, 135 Pa. 281. We come then to the main question which, it seems to us, involves legal principles of some importance.

The act of March 17, 1869 (P. L. 9), as amended by the act of May 24, 1887 (P. L. 197), provides that the writ shall be made returnable on the first return day after the issuing thereof, and that proof of the fraudulent acts shall be made by affidavit and a bond filed before the issuing of the writ. If a return day intervene between the issuing of the writ and the return day named therein, it is ground for quashing: Parks v. Watts, 112 Pa. 4; Williamson v. McCormick, 126 Pa. 274. (Whether the rule is the same where the act of 1878 applies is immaterial in the present inquiiy). It is quite as irregular and contrary to law to make the writ returnable on the day it issues. This writ was made returnable on the first Monday of March (March 2, 1896), and if it was issued on that day, it was the duty of the court to quash it, upon the defendant’s motion. But is this essential fact shown by the record ? The primary evidence of the issuing, service and return of a writ is the writ itself: Vincent v. Huff, 4 S. & R. 298. The praecipe, it is true, is part of the record, and a mistake made by the prothonotary in drawing the writ may be amended by it: Jones v. Hartley, 3 Wh. 178. So also upon writ of error, where the question was whether the summons had issued ten days before the return, and the summons did not show the date of issue or service, it was held that the praecipe might be resorted to for the purpose: Fitzsimons v. Salomon, 2 Binn. 436. But whether, in a collateral proceeding, or upon a motion to quash, or upon appeal, the file mark on the praecipe is better evidence of the date of issue than the teste of the writ is quite a different question. Be that as it may, it is clear that where the writ is free of interlineations, alterations and erasures, and is tested on a certain day, the legal presumption that it was issued on that day is not overcome by an apparent alteration of the date of filing first written or stamped on the preecipe.

But although the writ was issued on February 29, yet, if the affidavit and bond were not filed until March 2, the writ issued without authority; and, as the latter date was apparently first stamped on these papers and was then canceled and the former date interlined, it is argued that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to explain these alterations, and that in the absence of such explanation the presumption is that the date of filing first indorsed on the papers was the true date. A record is a written memorial made by a public officer authorized by law to perform that function, and intended to serve as evidence of something written, said, or done. Bouv. L. Diet. “Every court of record is the guardian and judge of its own records. It is clothed with full power to control and inquire into them, and to set them right if incorrect. They are placed in the custody of an officer .... whose duty it is to preserve them pure and regular ; who is sworn to perform that duty, and required to give security; and who is at all times subject to the supervision of the court. For any criminal alteration of the record, he, and all concerned, would be subject to infamous punishment by the act of 1700, as well as by the payment of double damages sustained. These are the precautions which the law provides for the faithful keeping of the records; and under these precautions, it gives full faith and credit to them, and will not allow their verity to be questioned. Omnia prsesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta: ” Hoffman v. Coster, 2 Wh. 453, 469. This enunciation of familiar and well settled principles is particularly appropriate here, because it was made in a case where the record offered in evidence bore on its face appearance of alteration. As between the parties to the suit, and upon error or on the hearing of any motion in the suit, in which the question arises collaterally, the date of filing a paper is to be determined by the record. All the presumptions are that the officer has made a true record of that act. It is an act in which the party participates in no way, and after the paper is delivered to the officer it remains in his exclusive custody and control. It is much to be deplored that an interlineation, an alteration, or an erasure should ever appear upon a judicial record, but it would be intolerable to hold that a party in no way responsible for the keeping of the records must explain it or be deprived of the rights which the record was intended to give him. If he must do that in this case he must do it in any form of proceeding in which he might desire to use the record as evidence, and at any length of time after the act recorded. In many cases this would be an impossibility. If one takes an instrument bearing on its face evidence of alteration, it is not unreasonable to require him to prove that the alteration was made before execution or with the consent of the other party, for he is not bound to take such a paper, and when he has taken it the law presumes that he not only satisfied himself of the innocence of the transaction, but that he provided himself with the proofs of it to meet a scrutiny he had reason to expect: Simpson v. Stackhouse, 9 Pa. 186. But- it is not so with a record which the party neither makes nor has the custody of. The cases cited by the appellees’ counsel relate to private writings and do not apply to a record of judicial proceedings. As between the parties to the suit, the presumption, which the law raises in favor of innocence and the integrity of records, is not so far overcome in the present case by the apparent changes made in recording the date of filing as to cast on the plaintiff the burden of proving by extraneous evidence that they were made at the very time the record was made, and that the record as it stands is true. Taking the record as a whole, the presumption, in this proceeding, is, that in indorsing the date of filing on the bond and affidavit the prothonotary made a mistake of date which he corrected as soon as made, rather than that he wrongfully antedated the writ, altered the date of filing the praecipe, the affidavit and the bond to correspond therewith, and followed this up by making false entries in the continuance docket. However strong the suspicion which may have been excited by an inspection of these papers, it was the duty of the court to give the record the benefit of the presumption that it was always in the condition it now appears to be: Adams v. Betz, 1 W. 425; Hoffman v. Coster, 2 Wh. 453.

A word should be added as to the erasure and interlineation in the jurat to the affidavit. The act of 1869 provides that in case of personal service of the attachment on the defendant, or if he shall appear to the action, the court shall proceed in the case in like manner as in a case of summons for debt regularly-issued and duly served. It was decided in Biddle v. Black, 99 Pa. 380, that an affidavit which neither set forth specifically the fraudulent acts of the defendant, nor was made in the words of the statute, and which did not describe the kind of property and was wholly silent as to the time the merchandise was purchased was defective. “It was error, however, to quash the writ. There had been personal service on the defendant. While the property was justly released, yet the suit goes on: Sharpless v. Ziegler, 92 Pa. 467.” If defect hi the substance of the affidavit is not a valid reason for quashing the writ after service and appearance, an interlineation or erasure in the jurat attached thereto by the prothonotary or his deputy cannot be. We are not called upon to decide whether, if unexplained, it would be a valid reason for dissolving the attachment, and we express no opinion upon that question.

The order quashing the writ is reversed and a procedendo „ awarded.


text:
    Trenton Rubber Company, a Corporation under the Laws of New Jersey, v. Samuel L. Small, Appellant.

      Practice, O. P. — Costs—Entry of security by nonresident plaintiff .

    Even where a rule of court provides that a nonresident plaintiff may be required to enter security for costs the court may, in its discretion, refuse to require plaintiff to give security unless the defendant sets forth in his affidavit of defense a just defense to the action.

      Gosts — Discretion of court — Review of on appeal.

    The action on the part of the court being discretionary is not reviewable in the absence of evidence showing an abuse of discretion.

      Entry of judgment pending an order of stay.

    The court may enter a judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense while an order staying proceedings pending disposition of a rule to show cause why a nonresident plaintiff' should not enter security is pending. In such case a subsequent order discharging the rule for costs nunc pro tunc completes the record. The omission to record the order before entering the. judgment is uot such an irregularity as invalidates the judgment.

      Vendor and vendee — Order of inspection while goods are in hands of carrier.

    Where one orders an article to be manufactured and shipped to him, and the article is placed in the hands of the common carrier to be delivered to him without any qualification or restriction, he cannot successfully defend against an action for the price by merely alleging and proving that, after the article reached the place of consignment and was still in the exclusive custody and control of the carrier, the plaintiff or his agent refused him permission to examine it before paying freight charges and receiving it from the carrier.
    Argued Oct. 19, 1896.
    Appeal No. 145, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1., Phila. Co., March T., 1896, No. 674, in favor of plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
    Before Rice, P. J., Willard, Wickham, Beaver, Reeder, Orlady and Smith, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeal by defendant from judgment of magistrate, in assumpsit, in favor of plaintiff.
    The record discloses: Statement filed May 4th. Affidavit filed May 22d. Rule for judgment July 8th. July 18th a rule entered by defendant against plaintiff for security for costs and proceedings to stay granted by the court. On September 22, 1896, during the pendency of the latter rule the court entered judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. On September 26,1896, a rule filed September 22, to discharge rule for security for costs as of September 22, 1896, was made absolute. On September 25, 1896, this appeal was taken.
    Plaintiffs’ statement discloses the following cause of action:
    This action is brought to recover the sum of $90.00, with interest thereon from the 23d day of October, 1895; said sum is the amount due and owing to the plaintiff, which is a corporation under the laws of New Jersey, from the defendant upon a cause of action, whereof the following is a statement:
    On May 21,1895, defendant ordered plaintiff to manufacture or have manufactured for him, at his expense, a metal mold, to be used in the manufacture of washers. Subsequent thereto, and after the work had been commenced, defendant directed plaintiff to cease work upon said mold, as he proposed to have certain changes made therein; that plaintiff did cease work thereon until the 20th day of September, 1895, when defendant directed them to finish said mold and ship it to him, whereupon it would be paid for; that plaintiff caused said mold to be finished, and shipped it to defendant on October 23, 1895 ; that defendant, although demand has been made upon him therefor, has wholly neglected and refused,’and still wholly neglects and refuses, to pay the sum of 190.00, the cost of the manufacture of said mold, which sum, with interest thereon from the 23d day of October, 1895, plaintiff claims to recover from him in this action.
    AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENSE.
    The defendant admits having instructed the plaintiff to construct for him a certain metal mold which was intended and designed to complete an invention of a metallic barrel bung. Defendant ordered said mold with the understanding that if upon examination it should be found to vary or be incorrect, the same would not be received.
    The allegation in the statement of demand filed, that the mold was shipped on October 23, 1895, the defendant has no knowledge of, having never received notice thereof directly from plaintiff nor any one else, until as hereinafter set out, nor has the defendant ever received a bill of lading, as is usual and customary in such cases, from the plaintiff or any one else.
    The defendant avers that the said plaintiff has and did have, at the time said mold was shipped, the proper and correct address of this defendant; the same being 237 North Front street, Philadelphia, Pa.
    In the latter part of November, 1895, defendant received notice from plaintiff’s counsel, Messrs..Chapman & Chapman, that the mold had been shipped to Philadelphia, and after the expiration of some time they informed defendant that same was at the Dock Street Freight Station of the Pennsylvania R. R. Company, in Philadelphia aforesaid.
    Defendant avers that after a diligent search he discovered a wooden box at the station aforesaid, marked “ S. L. Small, Philada., ” which said box was- in a very filthy and damaged condition. Defendant thereupon requested of plaintiff’s counsel permission to examine the box and its contents, before receiving same, but the request was refused.
    The defendant believes he had a proper and legal right to examine the box and contents, and not having received permission so to do, lie was justified in refusing to receive the same, or to pay for the metal mold without prior examination.
    Judgment for plaintiff for $94.95. Defendant appealed.

      Errors assigned were (1, 2) entry of judgment.

      Samuel Noar, for appellant.
    — It is submitted that the court below should not have entered judgment during the pendency of the rule staying proceeding^. The statement is insufficient to entitle plaintiff to judgment, inasmuch as it does not allege the contract price: Newbold v. Pennocli, 154 Pa. 591; Fritz v. Hathaway, 135 Pa. 274.

      Francis Chapman, of Chapman & Chapman, for appellee.
    The true test as to the sufficiency of a statement of - claim is that laid down in the case of Hutton v. McLaughlin, 1 Pa. Superior Ct. 642. The goods having been generally consigned to the defendant, the consignor had no further control over them: Railroad v. Wireman, 88 Pa. 264.
    November 9, 1896:
   Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

The practice of requiring of nonresident plaintiffs security for costs, is usually regulated by rule of court. Whether or not the court below has such a rule, we are not informed, and, so far as the case before us is concerned, it is immaterial. The court, in its discretion, may refuse to require the plaintiff to give security for costs unless the defendant sets forth in his affidavit a just defense to the action, and it was probably upon that ground that the order was refused in the present case. We need not speculate as to that however; for, being a discretionary matter, and there not being the slightest evidence of an abuse of discretion, the action of the court in discharging that rule is not reviewable here. Perhaps it would have been more regular if the court had disposed of it before, or at the time, it made absolute the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. But the court had not so tied its hands that it could not enter judgment. Having power to revoke the order staying proceedings, the entry of judgment may fairly be construed as an exercise of that power; and in this view of the case, the court simply perfected the record when it discharged the rule for security for costs nunc pro tunc. The omission to record the order at the time of entering judgment was not such an irregularity as invalidated the judgment or harmed the defendant in any way.

The plaintiff’s statement of claim sets forth the ingredients of a good cause of action with sufficient precision to require an affidavit of defense. The averments are, that the defendant ordered the plaintiff to manufacture for him, “at his expense,” a metal mold, that the plaintiff manufactured the mold and shipped it to the defendant, and that the defendant has refused to pay the cost of the manufacture of the mold, which was $90.00. Under the contract alleged in the statement of claim, the plaintiff was entitled, prima facie, to recover the cost of the mold, and was not bound to aver or prove that the thing manufactured was reasonably worth in the market what it cost to manufacture it. Having been made for a special purpose it might have had no market value. Under the circumstances of this case the rule laid down in Ballentine v. Robinson, 46 Pa. 177, is applicable, and the plaintiff was entitled to sue for the value of the article manufactured and delivered, and recover the contract price. Here the contract price was the expense or cost of manufacture. If the amount demanded was more than the price ordinarily charged for the manufacture of such an article, or if it was defective in construction or material, it was incumbent on the defendant to aver it in his affidavit of defense.

The mold was delivered to the carrier, consigned generally to the defendant at Philadelphia without qualification or restriction, pursuant to the defendant’s order to ship it to him when completed. The defendant admits that he had notice of its arrival at the carrier’s freight office in Philadelphia, and does not allege that the carrier refused to deliver it to him, or to permit him to examine it before taking it away, or that it was defective in any particular or was not made as directed. He claims that he was justified in refusing to receive it because the plaintiff’s counsel refused him permission to examine the box and its contents before doing so. But, as the mold had passed out of the control of the plaintiff — P. & R. R. Co. v. Wireman, 88 Pa. 264 — it is difficult to see how this can constitute a defense. It was not for the plaintiff or its counsel to grant or refuse the defendant’s request to inspect the mold at that time and place. This was a matter between the defendant and the carrier, and the plaintiff was not under obligation to interfere to secure him the privilege unless there was a prior agreement to that effect. The defendant’s averment that he ordered the mold “ with the understanding that if upon examination it should be found to vary or be incorrect, the same would not be received ” may mean, and probably does mean, no more than that it was his understanding that he should have the right to examine the mold before accepting it. It is not denied that he would have had that right even though he had taken it from the carrier’s hands. But it is very certain that an allegation so vague and ambiguous cannot be construed to mean that there was an agreement that he should be given an opportunity to examine the mold before paying freight charges and taking it from the carrier. If there had been such an agreement, he would, undoubtedly, have averred it in clear and unequivocal terms.

Where one orders an article to be manufactured and shipped to him, and the article is placed in the hands of the common carrier to be delivered to him without any qualification or restriction, he cannot successfully defend against an action for the price by merely alleging and proving that, after the article reached the place of consignment and was still in the exclusive custody and control of the carrier, the plaintiff or his agent refused, him permission to examine it before paying freight charges and receiving it from the carrier.

Under the local act of April 14, 1846 (P. L. 328) defendants in appeals from justices of the peace were required to file affidavits of defense, wherever the cause of action was within the affidavit of defence law. This provision was not repealed by the procedure act of May 25, 1887 (P. L. 272).

Judgment affirmed.