
    Stewart, Appellant, v. Philadelphia.
    Practice, O. P. — Power and discretion of court — Belay in filing statement of claim — Judgment of non pros.
    
    Where a summons in assumpsit was issued in 1899, and no other step in the ease was taken by the plaintiff until 1912, when a statement of claim was filed, the lower court commits no error in striking off the statement of claim, and entering a judgment of non pros upon a rule entered by tbe defendant. Waring v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 176 Pa. 172, followed.
    Argued March 25, 1913.
    May 5, 1913:
    Appeal, No. 4, Jan. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of non pros, of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1899, No. 593, in case of George W. Stewart v. The City of Philadelphia.
    Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Assumpsit on a contract.
    From the record it appeared that a summons was issued December 29,1899; no statement of claim was filed until March 12, 1912; on March 29, 1912, defendant entered a rule on plaintiff to show cause why the statement of claim should not be stricken from the record and judgment of non pros, entered; on May 14, 1912, the rule was made absolute; on June 28,1912, plaintiff took a rule on defendant to' show cause why plaintiff’s statement of claim should not be reinstated on the record and the judgment of non pros, stricken off. This rule was discharged July 2, 1912. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the action of the court in discharging the rule:
    
      James L. Monihan, for appellant.
    
      John S. Minds, Assistant City Solicitor, with him J oseph A. Dolan, Assistant City Solicitor, and Michael J. Ryan, City Solicitor, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

Waring Bros. & Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 176 Pa. 172, is conclusive that the court below did not err in refusing to strike off the judgment of non pros.

Appeal dismissed.  