Daniel's Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Daniel's Case

31 Pa. Super. 156, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 176

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 23, 1906

DocketAppeal, No. 168

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Pa. Super. 156 (Daniel's Case) 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

Daniel's Case, 31 Pa. Super. 156, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 176 (Pa. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Beaver, J.,

The opinion of the court below fully covers all the questions involved in this case.' The statement of facts therein contained shows that at the time the former occupants of the hotel removed therefrom no license was in existence and there was, therefore, nothing to which the petition could attach. In this respect the case differs in its essential facts from Umholtz’s License, 191 Pa. 177.

We can profitably add nothing to what the court below has said in the very full opinion refusing the prayer of the petitioner and dismissing the petition. The order is, therefore, affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Beaver, J.,

The opinion of the court below fully covers all the questions involved in this case.' The statement of facts therein contained shows that at the time the former occupants of the hotel removed therefrom no license was in existence and there was, therefore, nothing to which the petition could attach. In this respect the case differs in its essential facts from Umholtz’s License, 191 Pa. 177.

We can profitably add nothing to what the court below has said in the very full opinion refusing the prayer of the petitioner and dismissing the petition. The order is, therefore, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Pa. Super. 156, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-case-pasuperct-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack