Automobile Finance Co. v. Markman

82 Pa. Super. 478, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 11
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 10, 1923·No. Appeal, 299·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decree of the court below discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. “It must be a very plain case of error in law, if we sustain appeals in such cases as this, from the decree of the common pleas discharging the rule”: ¿Etna Insurance Co. v. Confer, 158 Pa. 604. The opinion filed by Judge Gordon, of the court below, upon discharging the rule, renders unnecessary further discussion of the question involved.

The appeal is dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff, ■ but without prejudice to his right to a trial by jury, and a second appeal after final judgment.

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

Automobile Finance Co. v. Markman, 82 Pa. Super. 478, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 11 (Pa. Ct. App. 1923).

82 Pa. Super. 478 (Automobile Finance Co. v. Markman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Associates Financial Services Co. v. O'Dell
417 A.2d 604 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Associates Financial Services Co. v. O'Dell
396 A.2d 1324 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
APART. OWNERS & MANAGERS, ETC. v. Brown
382 A.2d 473 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1977)
Younger v. Plunkett
395 F. Supp. 702 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1975)