Cunningham v. Kitchen

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Cunningham v. Kitchen

181 A. 387, 119 Pa. Super. 382, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 211

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 21, 1935

DocketAppeal, 193

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A. 387 (Cunningham v. Kitchen) 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

Cunningham v. Kitchen, 181 A. 387, 119 Pa. Super. 382, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 211 (Pa. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Culver. The statement in the opinion that “It was too late [for the defendant], to declare the forfeiture after plaintiff had tendered him the full amount due him in accordance with his demands,” is sustained by the language used by Mr. Justice Kephart in the case of White Co. to use, etc. v. Union Transfer Co., 270 Pa. 514, 517, 113 A. 432.

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

Per Curiam,

The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Culver. The statement in the opinion that “It was too late [for the defendant], to declare the forfeiture after plaintiff had tendered him the full amount due him in accordance with his demands,” is sustained by the language used by Mr. Justice Kephart in the case of White Co. to use, etc. v. Union Transfer Co., 270 Pa. 514, 517, 113 A. 432.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A. 387, 119 Pa. Super. 382, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-kitchen-pasuperct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack