Cassidy v. Knapp

31 A. 638, 167 Pa. 305, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 899
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 8, 1895
DocketAppeal No. 104
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 31 A. 638 (Cassidy v. Knapp) 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
Cassidy v. Knapp, 31 A. 638, 167 Pa. 305, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 899 (Pa. 1895).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

The assignments of error relating to the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the Amended Equity Rules adopted January 15,1894, must be sustained. These rules were formulated and adopted to regulate the practice of equity in the several courts of common pleas in the commonwealth, and went into effect on the first Monday of March, 1894. They were established under the direction and by the authority of an act of the legislature, and have all the force and effect of a positive enactment. All proceedings in equity which are not in conformity with them are irregular and void.

The preliminary injunction in this case was based upon a bill [308]*308which was not in compliance with the rules, and this failure is fatal to the whole proceeding. This being the case it is unnecessary to consider the remaining assignments.

The order of the court of common pleas of September 14,. 1894, granting a preliminary injunction, is reversed and set aside at the cost of the appellee.

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

Related

Surco Products, Inc. v. Kieszek
80 A.2d 842 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1951)
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Himelfarb
66 A.2d 257 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1949)
Wanamaker v. Wanamaker
172 A. 646 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
Mintzer v. Turnbach
172 A. 162 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
Strizak v. Danacko
11 Pa. D. & C. 150 (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
Horner v. Sanderson
9 Pa. D. & C. 296 (Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 1927)
Borough of Summerhill v. Sherbine
88 Pa. Super. 419 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
Rader v. Keiper
132 A. 824 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
Walters v. Tamaqua Borough
6 Pa. D. & C. 323 (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)
Coombe Garment Co. v. Morris
52 Pa. Super. 624 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)
Green v. Prince Metallic Paint Co.
25 Pa. Super. 415 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Hughes v. Antill
23 Pa. Super. 290 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)
Yetter v. Delaware Valley Railroad
56 A. 57 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)
Hinnershitz v. United Traction Co.
55 A. 841 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)
Cooke v. Central District & Printing Telegraph Co.
21 Pa. Super. 43 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Gwinn v. Lee
6 Pa. Super. 646 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)
Thrall v. City of Williamsport
4 Pa. Super. 165 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)
Buffalo & St. Mary's Railroad v. Philadelphia & Erie Railroad
34 A. 561 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1896)
Brinton v. Hogue
33 A. 554 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A. 638, 167 Pa. 305, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassidy-v-knapp-pa-1895.