Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Smith

Citations

  • 266 Pa. 511
  • 109 A. 786
  • 9 A.L.R. 922
  • 1920 Pa. LEXIS 599

Syllabus

<p>Sunday laws — Fairmount Park of Philadelphia — Playing hall— Eqmty — Jurisdiction—Finding of facts — When conclusive on appeal — Act of April 22,179h, 3 Sm. L. 177.</p> <p>1. Where a bill in equity for an injunction, to restrain the park commissioners of Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, from licensing or permitting outdoor games to be played in the park on Sunday, avers that the playing of such games was in violation of the Act of April 22, 1794, 3 Sm. L. 177, and was a public nuisance, and the court below finds as a fact that the evidence failed to prove that a resolution passed by the commissioners, or games played in the park, constituted a public or private nuisance, or that the playing of such games on Sunday had been licensed either by the commissioners or the chief engineer, such finding, although excepted to in the court below, if not assigned as error on appeal, is conclusive, and the appellate court will consider the case as consisting of mere alleged violations of the Act of 1794.</p> <p>2. A court of equity has no jurisdiction to entertain a bill for an injunction to restrain a violation of the Sunday law of April 22, 1794, inasmuch as the act provides a penalty for its violation, and there is therefore an adequate remedy at law. If such penalty is not a sufficient deterrent, it is for the legislature to provide another.</p> <p>3. A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it, and a bill in equity will not lie having for its sole purpose an injunction against the mere commission of a crime.</p> <p>Appeals — Practice, Supreme Court — Assignments of error — Statement of questions involved — Exceptions—Hem-say—Evidence.</p> <p>4. Where the appellant’s statement of the questions involved does not include matters complained of in assignments of error, such matters will not be considered by the appellate court.</p> <p>5. WThere no exception is taken to a ruling of the trial court, sustaining an objection

Judges: Brown, Frazer, Kephart, Mosohzisker, Simpson, Walling

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.