Commonwealth v. Mathias

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Mathias

89 Pa. Super. 98, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 10

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 9, 1926

DocketAppeal 29

StatusPublished

This text of 89 Pa. Super. 98 (Commonwealth v. Mathias) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Mathias, 89 Pa. Super. 98, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 10 (Pa. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

The appellant in this appeal, Stewart Mathias, was convicted of having conspired with William Strauss and Samuel Strauss to defraud certain insurance companies and this appeal was argued with the appeal of the said William Strauss at No. 27, October Term, 1926, of this court.

The assignments of error are identical with those filed in support of the appeal of the said William Strauss. la an opinion this day handed down we have stated at length our reasons for overruling all the assignments of error and affirming the sentence pronounced against the several defendants. For the reasons stated in that opinion the assignments in this appeal are dismissed and the judgment affirmed, and it is ordered that the appellant herein appear in the court below at such time las he may be there called and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time this appeal was made a supersedeas.

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

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

The appellant in this appeal, Stewart Mathias, was convicted of having conspired with William Strauss and Samuel Strauss to defraud certain insurance companies and this appeal was argued with the appeal of the said William Strauss at No. 27, October Term, 1926, of this court.

The assignments of error are identical with those filed in support of the appeal of the said William Strauss. la an opinion this day handed down we have stated at length our reasons for overruling all the assignments of error and affirming the sentence pronounced against the several defendants. For the reasons stated in that opinion the assignments in this appeal are dismissed and the judgment affirmed, and it is ordered that the appellant herein appear in the court below at such time las he may be there called and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time this appeal was made a supersedeas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 Pa. Super. 98, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mathias-pasuperct-1926.