Bolton v. Hey

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Bolton v. Hey

23 A. 973, 148 Pa. 156, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 932

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 28, 1892

DocketAppeal, No. 214

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 A. 973 (Bolton v. Hey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bolton v. Hey, 23 A. 973, 148 Pa. 156, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 932 (Pa. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam,

The learned judge of the court below held that the affidavit of defence was sufficient to prevent judgment. In this we think he was right. The case comes directly within the ruling in Schroeder v. Galland, 134 Pa. 277. Indeed, the contract appears to have been drawn with reference to that decision, as its language is identical with the opinion of Mr. Justice G reen. We adhere to the law of that case. It follows that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

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

Pee Ctjeiam,

The learned judge of the court below held that the affidavit of defence was sufficient to prevent judgment. In this we think he was right. The case comes directly within the ruling in Schroeder v. Galland, 134 Pa. 277. Indeed, the contract appears to have been drawn with reference to that decision, as its language is identical with the opinion of Mr. Justice G reen. We adhere to the law of that case. It follows that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 973, 148 Pa. 156, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolton-v-hey-pa-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack