
    Harrisburg Hospital For the Reception and Cure of the Sick and Injured v. Arthur C. Houck, Appellant.
    
      Argued March 13, 1929.
    Before Tbexleb, Kellee, Linn, Gawthbop and Baldridge, JJ. Appeal
    
      Oscar G. WicJcersham, for appellant,
    cited: Daniel H. Kramer v. David H. Kister, 187 Pa. 227.
    
      John R. Geyer, and with him Paul G. Smith, for appellee,
    cited: McCullough’s Estate, 292 Pa. 422; Gianni v. Russel & Co., Inc., 281 Pa. 320; Bixler & Co. v. Stoker & Son, 91 Pa. Superior Ct. 265.
    April 10, 1929:
   Per Curiam,

Experience has shown that rules of court are as useful to counsel presenting cases on appeal as they are necessary to the disposition by the court of the large volume of appellate work presented every year. In this case there has been such general disregard of our rules that we. must again call attention to the matter. It is said that the action is assumpsit, but the pleadings raising the issue for trial are not printed as required by rule 45, while at the same time rule's 55 and 56 were.disregarded. The assignments of error —an es'sential part of the pleadings in this court (Cessna’s Estate, 192 Pa. 14, 18; Standard Brewing Co. v. Knapp, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 252, 254) — were also drawn and printed in obvious disregard of rules.

In the circumstances we apply rule 57 (Eason v. U. S. Shipping Board, 89 Pa. Superior Ct. 485) and dispose of the case without discussion of the merits, though it would 'seem that appellant had no defense to the action.

Appeal dismissed.  