Cunningham v. Kitchen

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Cunningham v. Kitchen

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

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 21, 1935·No. Appeal, 193·Published

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.

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

Pincite

181 A. 387 (Cunningham v. Kitchen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related