283 A.2d 504
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.Argued September 10, 1971
November 9, 1971.
Eminent domain — Receiver — Right of appeal.
1. A receiver, duly appointed to represent all interests in a corporation, the ownership and control of which being in dispute, is the proper party to appeal from a decision in an eminent domain proceeding in which the receiver represented the interests of the corporation; individual claimants to control of the corporation have no standing to appeal. [393-4]
Judge MANDERINO concurs in the decision only.
Page 393
Argued September 10, 1971, before President Judge BOWMAN and Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., MANDERINO, MENCER and ROGERS.
Appeals, Nos. 500 C.D. 1971 and 501 C.D. 1971, from the Decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County at No. 803 March Term 1966, in case of Scientific Living, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Highways.
Appeal from Report of Viewers filed in Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County. Verdicts entered for property owner. CONABOY, J. Disputants appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Appeal dismissed.
Gene Basalyga and Mildred Hohensee, In Propria Persona, for appellants in 500 C.D. 1971.
Ervin Hohensee and Thelma Tompkins, In Propria Persona, for appellants in 501 C.D. 1971.
Edward D. Werblun, Assistant Attorney General, with hi Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellee.
OPINION PER CURIAM, November 9, 1971:
These appeals challenge an Eminent Domain award by the Common Pleas Court of Lackawanna County to Scientific Living, Inc. for the taking of certain corporate lands by the Pennsylvania Department of Highways. Prior to trial, a receiver was appointed by the court below to represent all interests in Scientific Living, Inc. because ownership and control of the corporation was disputed. Four individuals involved in the ownership dispute have filed these appeals, in their own names as well as in the name of the corporation,
Page 394
alleging error in that they were wrongly denied the opportunity to participate in the trial. We hold that since the lower court had appointed a receiver and he did participate in the trial as the representative of all interests in the condemned land, only he may appeal the decision of the court below. Spires v. Hanover Fire Insurance Co., 364 Pa. 52, 70 A.2d 828 (1950) Continental Bank Trust Company v. American Assembly Machine Co., 350 Pa. 300, 38 A.2d 220 (1944). Appellants remedy, if any exists, rests in the challenge of the appointment of the receiver to represent their interests. Here is where the appropriate appeal would lie. Yorks v. Altmiller, 270 Pa. 438, 113 A. 415 (1921). The order appointing the receiver is valid and cannot be ignored absent a successful appeal of the same.
Dismissed.
Judge MANDERINO concurs in decision only.