Brown v. City of Philadelphia ex rel. Horter

6 A. 904, 3 Sadler 45, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 731
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 4, 1886·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Trunkey:

This case was tried in the court below and argued here, with [46]*46Pepper v. Philadelphia, 114 Pa. 96, 5 Cent. Pep. 693, 6 Atl. 899. The only difference requiring note is that Brown’s son signed the writing with Frederick, for his father. It is not pretended that the signing of the name of William Brown was a forgery. As to extent of authority, and ratification of the signing by the son, nothing need be said in support of the rulings of the learned judge of the common pleas.

For the reasons stated in Pepper v. Philadelphia,—

Judgment affirmed.

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

Brown v. City of Philadelphia ex rel. Horter, 6 A. 904, 3 Sadler 45, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 731 (Pa. 1886).

6 A. 904 (Brown v. City of Philadelphia ex rel. Horter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Township of South Middleton v. Borough of Carlisle
346 A.2d 869 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
In re Annexation Ordinances ex rel. Borough of Carlisle
69 Pa. D. & C.2d 180 (Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 1974)