bill test in Pennsylvania

1943The statute does not otherwise limit the right to have discovery of such material facts; nor do the courts, unless it should clearly ‘appear on the face of such a bill- that the claim ... in aid of which discovery was sought, could not be maintained because forbidden by law, or contrary to public policy, or for other such conclusive reason’: Lesser v. Henry, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 440, 443 .” That plaintiff has averred, in her bill for discovery, a prima facie cause of action against defendant company, or subsequent endorsers of the checks allegedly wrongfully cashed by defendant, is clear.

1925The statute does not otherwise limit the right to have discovery of such material facts; nor do the courts, unless it should clearly “appear on the face of such a bill that the claim......in aid of which discovery was sought, could not be maintained because forbidden by law, or contrary to public policy, or for other such conclusive reason”: Lesser v. Henry, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 440, 443 .

2022The bill analysis provided with the legislation explained that these two amendments were prompted by Spotz v. Commonwealth, 972 A.2d 125 (Pa. Commw. 2009).

2006Smillie v. McElwee, 327 Pa. 148 , 193 A. 628, 633 (1937): This court said in Appeal of City of Scranton School District, 113 Pa. 176, 190 , 6 A. 158 , 160 [1886]: "Attempts, in covert modes, to defeat its [the Constitution's] plain provisions, must be set aside with the same certainty as when the methods are open." The act now before us is a legislative usurpation of power.

2005There is no indication that this analysis purports to express the intent even of a committee, let alone the entire legislature.” Id.

1925Besides, this case is a proper one for the application of the rule laid down by Fell, J., in Cassidy v. Knapp, Admin’r, 167 Pa. 305, 307 , in dismissing a bill which was endorsed with a notice in accordance with the requirements of the old equity rules, and not in accordance with the amended equity rules which superseded them and changed the form of notice.

1923Counsel for the township supervisors relies on Plains Township’s Appeal, 21 Pa. Superior Ct. 68 .

1920Co. v. Stowe Twp., 252 Pa. 149 , which, while subsequent to the code, was not, on its facts, within that act, nor did it, or any other of the cited authorities, involve, as an apparent principal object, an effort to review and set aside an antecedent collateral statutory proceeding, had under an act of assembly wherein an adequate remedy by review at law is particularly provided for, which the averments and prayers of the bill at bar indicate to be the real purpose of the present case.

1912It was the very situation had in mind by the writer of the last cited case when he says, “But be that as it may, having regard to the reason of the requirement that the exception be noted by the court, as well as to the very words of the act, we think it clear that this must be done before the writ of error (now appeal) allowed by the act may be sued out.” In Dock v. Hart, 7 W. & S. 172 , Judge Gibson held, that a bill of exception to the charge of the court if taken after the verdict is in time, if it is sealed by the court and sent up with the record.

1905We think this question too well settled to require extended discussion: Wells v. Bain, 75 Pa. 39 ; Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. 338 ; Pittsburg’s Appeal, 79 Pa. 317 .

1905We think this question too well settled to require extended discussion: Wells v. Bain, 75 Pa. 39 ; Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. 338 ; Pittsburg’s Appeal, 79 Pa. 317 .

1905We think this question too well settled to require extended discussion: Wells v. Bain, 75 Pa. 39 ; Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. 338 ; Pittsburg’s Appeal, 79 Pa. 317 .

1899The object of these rules and the reasons upon which they are founded have been fully stated in Battles v. Sliney, 126 Pa. 460 , and in Com. v. Werntz, 161 Pa. 591 .

1899The object of these rules and the reasons upon which they are founded have been fully stated in Battles v. Sliney, 126 Pa. 460 , and in Com. v. Werntz, 161 Pa. 591 .

1836In Poultney v. Ross, ( 1 Dall. 239 ,) Shipped, J., says, “ Though in England the shop book of a tradesman is not evidence of a debt, without the oath of a clerk who made the entry, yet here, from the necessity of the case, as business is often carried on by the principal, and many of our tradesmen do not keep clerks, the book proved by the oath of the principal, has always been admitted.