return rule in Pennsylvania

2026The panel first noted “the trial court did not rely on the prosecutor’s statements in making its decision” but, instead, “cite[d a]ppellant’s testimony, which it found not credible, and the Commonwealth’s documentary evidence.” Id.

2026The panel first noted “the trial court did not rely on the prosecutor’s statements in making its decision” but, instead, “cite[d a]ppellant’s testimony, which it found not credible, and the Commonwealth’s documentary evidence.” Id.

1912The control of the court, as said in Ullom v. Hughes, 204 Pa. 305 , ‘over both the form and the substance of the issue is ample and should be exercised to fit the requirements of the real controversy between the parties.’ After hearing the parties and their evidence on the return to the rule the court may mold the issue with due regard to the prehminary question which party is out of actual possession and should therefore have the burden of proof.

1907The control of the court as said in Ullom v. Hughes, 204 Pa. 305 , “ over both the form and the substance of the issue is ample and should be exercised to fit the requirements of the real controversy between the parties.” After hearing the parties and their evidence on the return to the rule the court may mould the issue with due regard to the preliminary question which party is out of actual possession and should therefore have the burden of proof.

2020(R.R. at 33a, N.T. at 13.) 7 “Our review in tax sale cases is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, clearly erred as a matter of law or rendered a decision with a lack of supporting evidence.” In re Consolidated Reports and Return by the Tax Claims Bureau of Northumberland County of Properties, 132 A.3d 637 , 643 n.12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (internal citations omitted). 6 sale where the property owner went in person to the [Bureau] with questions regarding a notice of a return and claim and was told by the [Bureau] that its property would not be sold until July 1, 2

1946The Divorce Law of May 2, 1929, P. L. 1237, sec. 35, 23 PS §35, provides in effect that either party in a divorce proceeding desiring any matter of fact that is affirmed by one and denied by the other to be tried by a jury may take a rule upon the opposite party to show cause why the issues of fact set forth in the rule shall not be tried by a jury, and that; “Upon the return of such rule, after hearing, the court may discharge it or make it absolute, or frame issues itself, and only the issues as ordered by the court shall be tried accordingly, but such rule shall not be made absolute when, i

1938We are, therefore, of opinion that the statute, as properly interpreted, requires the court when there is an appearance entered and an answer filed on the return of the rule to hear and determine the sufficiency of the answer, and if the court orders the rule made absolute, the respondent has six months from the date of the *307 order to bring his action before judgment can be entered against him.” This statement of the rule was cited and approved in Notley’s Petition, 263 Pa. 377, 383 , 106 A. 716 .

1938We are, therefore, of opinion that the statute, as properly interpreted, requires the court when there is an appearance entered and an answer filed on the return of the rule to hear and determine the sufficiency of the answer, and if the court orders the rule made absolute, the respondent has six months from the date of the *307 order to bring his action before judgment can be entered against him.” This statement of the rule was cited and approved in Notley’s Petition, 263 Pa. 377, 383 , 106 A. 716 .

1937In Welsh v. Clough, 216 Pa. 276 , 65 A. 677 , there was a petition, answer and testimony taken.

1937In Welsh v. Clough, 216 Pa. 276 , 65 A. 677 , there was a petition, answer and testimony taken.

1937The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of this court (Rice, P. J.) in 51 Pa. Superior Ct. 224 , and said, speaking through Mr. Justice Mestrezat (p. 99): “We are, therefore, of opinion that the statute, as properly interpreted, requires the court when there is an appearance entered and an answer filed on the return of the rule to hear and determine the sufficiency of the answer, and if the court orders the rule made absolute, the respondent has six months from the date of the order to bring his action before judgment can be entered against him.” (Italics supplied.) The mere denial in the answ

1930In the case of Shamokin Lumber and Construction Co. v. Line Mountain Coal Co., 85 Pa. Superior Ct. 222 , to which the present case is analogous, it was said: “The return is defective on its face; while the words used in the return, ‘person in charge of the principal place of business . . .’ would indicate that he intended to make a return under clause (e), a comparison of the return with the requirements of clause (e) shows that the conditions are lacking in which service under that clause may be made.

1914The purpose of the statute was, as said in Doyle v. Brundred, 189 Pa. 113 , simply to provide a new court for the exercise of powers in partition already possessed.

1914The proper practice in such cases under the Act of 1856 is discussed and clearly pointed out by Mr. Justice Sterrett in Eyerman v. Detwiller, 136 Pa. 285 .

1907Ordinarily questions of title await the return of the rule for disposition: Titus v. Bindley, 210 Pa. 121 ; Pearl v. Johnstown, 216 Pa. 205 .

1907Ordinarily questions of title await the return of the rule for disposition: Titus v. Bindley, 210 Pa. 121 ; Pearl v. Johnstown, 216 Pa. 205 .

1906It is clear, therefore, that in the absence of any valid reasons being shown to the court, as in .this case, the heirs of a decedent are entitled to commence partition proceedings at any time and prosecute them to completion. ' While notice to the widow and heirs is not necessary before awarding an inquest in partition, yet, as suggested by Mr. Justice Ageev?" in Horam’s Estate, 59 Pa. 152 , “ It would be better if the orphans’ court would require a rule to show cause to be issued and served on all the parties in interest before awarding the inquest.” If, on the return of the rule, there are a