From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Day

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 30, 1970
272 A.2d 259 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1970)

Summary

In Day v. Holland, 15 Or. 464 (15 P. 855), it was decided that under the Code procedure an appeal from a decree does not break it up nor vacate it, and that it may be carried into execution notwithstanding the appeal, unless stayed by a supersedeas undertaking.

Summary of this case from Mignot v. Mignot

Opinion

Submitted November 9, 1970.

December 30, 1970.

Petitions for post-conviction relief. Before GRAFF, P.J., specially presiding. Appeals, Nos. 11 and 19, April T., 1970, from order of Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Allegheny County, April T., 1966, No. 175. Submitted November 9, 1970.

H. David Rothman, Assistant Public Defender, and George H. Ross, Public Defender, for appellant; Carol Mary Los and Robert L. Campbell, Assistant District Attorneys, and Robert W. Duggan, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.


Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Day

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 30, 1970
272 A.2d 259 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1970)

In Day v. Holland, 15 Or. 464 (15 P. 855), it was decided that under the Code procedure an appeal from a decree does not break it up nor vacate it, and that it may be carried into execution notwithstanding the appeal, unless stayed by a supersedeas undertaking.

Summary of this case from Mignot v. Mignot
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Day

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth v. Day, Appellant. Commonwealth v. Holland, Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 30, 1970

Citations

272 A.2d 259 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1970)
218 Pa. Super. 711

Citing Cases

Slabosheske v. Chikowske

It acts proprio vigore upon the res — the right to use the water. Day v. Holland, 15 Or. 464, ( 15 P. 855).…

Mignot v. Mignot

"Neither position can be maintained. In Day v. Holland, 15 Or. 464 ( 15 P. 855), it was decided that under…