Althouse v. Hunsberger

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Althouse v. Hunsberger

6 Pa. Super. 160, 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 329

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 18, 1897·No. Appeal, No. 92·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The very earnest argument of the defendant’s counsel has failed to convince us that the court committed error in discharging the rule entered in the present case or in entering judgment in the succeeding case. Its action in both cases is so thoroughly vindicated in the opinions filed as to render further discussion unnecessary and unprofitable.

Order affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The very earnest argument of the defendant’s counsel has failed to convince us that the court committed error in discharging the rule entered in the present case or in entering judgment in the succeeding case. Its action in both cases is so thoroughly vindicated in the opinions filed as to render further discussion unnecessary and unprofitable.

Order affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.

Althouse v. Hunsberger, 6 Pa. Super. 160, 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 329 (Pa. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

6 Pa. Super. 160 (Althouse v. Hunsberger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related