
    Ricketts, Appellant, v. Capwell.
    
      Equity — Demurrer—Prior opinion of Supreme Court.
    
    A demurrer to a bill in equity is properly sustained where the complaint of the bill is that the action of the court in dismissing’ complainant’s original bill was manifestly erroneous though such action had been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
    Argued April 14, 1913.
    Appeal, No. 362, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Luzerne Co., in equity, Jan. T., 1912, No. 362, sustaining demurrer to bill in equity in case of Agib Ricketts v. R. U. Capwell and Benton Coleman, Executors of Isaac B. Felts, deceased.
    Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Bill in equity for conveyance of property.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
    
      Error assigned was the decree of the court.
    
      Alexander Ricketts, with Mm William, 8. McLean, for appellant.
    
      John McGahren, with him J. M. Walker, for appellee.
    May 19, 1913:
   Per Curiam,

In the opinion of the court below, sustaining the demurrer to the appellant’s bill, his proceeding is not inaptly termed “unique, if not anomalous.” His complaint is that the action of the court in dismissing his original bill was “manifestly erroneous,” though affirmed by this court; and his prayer is that the court below correct our error, as well as its own, by reversing the decree made three years ago: Ricketts v. Capwell, 228 Pa. 268. Even if the demurrer is fairly open to criticism as a “speaking” one, there is sufficient in it to constitute it a good one, calling for tlie dismissal of the bill. On its face the complainant shows no right to what he prays for.

Appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.  