Fidelity v. Dietz
18 A. 1090, 132 Pa. 36, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 764
Opinion
There was no error in entering judgment in this case for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. If the action of the court below needs any vindication, it will be found in the opinion of its learned president. On that opinion
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fidelity v. Dietz, 18 A. 1090, 132 Pa. 36, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 764 (Pa. 1890).
18 A. 1090 (Fidelity v. Dietz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In Re Estate of Cummings
425 A.2d 340 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. Pearson
154 F.2d 256 (Third Circuit, 1946)
Board of Education v. Winding Gulf Collieries
152 F.2d 382 (Fourth Circuit, 1945)
Pearson v. Commissioner
4 T.C. 218 (U.S. Tax Court, 1944)
Penrose v. United States
18 F. Supp. 413 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1937)
Gorman's Estate
184 A. 86 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Du Puy v. Commissioner
32 B.T.A. 969 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1935)
Kenworthy's Estate
21 Pa. D. & C. 150 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1934)
Egan v. Innes
11 Pa. D. & C. 777 (Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
Kirkpatrick's Estate
131 A. 361 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)