Benton v. David Berg Distilling Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Benton v. David Berg Distilling Co.

63 Pa. Super. 412, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 178

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 18, 1916·No. Appeal, No. 282·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Kephart, J.,

The questions presented by this appeal were correctly determined by the lower court and we cannot add anything profitable to the reasons given in support of them in the opinion of the learned president- judge of the Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County. We might suggest that in addition to the authority quoted by Judge Martin, concerning the constitutionality of the section in question, that it was before this court in Heist v. Montayne (No. 1), 53 Pa. Superior Ct. 611, where Judge Porter- holds that this section does not offend Section ■7, Article III, of the Constitution of 1874.

Judgment affirmed,

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

Opinion by

Kephart, J.,

The questions presented by this appeal were correctly determined by the lower court and we cannot add anything profitable to the reasons given in support of them in the opinion of the learned president- judge of the Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County. We might suggest that in addition to the authority quoted by Judge Martin, concerning the constitutionality of the section in question, that it was before this court in Heist v. Montayne (No. 1), 53 Pa. Superior Ct. 611, where Judge Porter- holds that this section does not offend Section ■7, Article III, of the Constitution of 1874.

Judgment affirmed,

Benton v. David Berg Distilling Co., 63 Pa. Super. 412, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 178 (Pa. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

63 Pa. Super. 412 (Benton v. David Berg Distilling Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related