First National Bank v. Lytle Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

First National Bank v. Lytle Coal Co.

3 A.2d 350, 332 Pa. 394, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 572

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 5, 1938

DocketAppeal, 353

StatusPublished

Cited by38 cases

This text of 3 A.2d 350 (First National Bank v. Lytle Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First National Bank v. Lytle Coal Co., 3 A.2d 350, 332 Pa. 394, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 572 (Pa. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The bill was filed January 26, 1937, by minority shareholders in The Lytle Coal Company, a Pennsylvania mining corporation, against that corporation and' other parties, corporate and individual, for accounting and other relief. Defendants filed preliminary objections under Equity Rule 48. When they came on for hearing in the court below, plaintiffs asked and obtained leave to amend. After the bill was amended, the preliminary objections were renewed. The case then came on for hearing before the four judges of the court below sitting in banc. They were of opinion that it appeared from the bill that plaintiffs’ laches stood in the way of recovery. The bill was therefore dismissed in an opinion written for the court in banc by Valentine, J., certain extracts from which, fully supporting the conclusion reached, will be found in the reporter’s statement of the case.

The decree is affirmed at the costs of appellants.

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

Per Curiam,

The bill was filed January 26, 1937, by minority shareholders in The Lytle Coal Company, a Pennsylvania mining corporation, against that corporation and' other parties, corporate and individual, for accounting and other relief. Defendants filed preliminary objections under Equity Rule 48. When they came on for hearing in the court below, plaintiffs asked and obtained leave to amend. After the bill was amended, the preliminary objections were renewed. The case then came on for hearing before the four judges of the court below sitting in banc. They were of opinion that it appeared from the bill that plaintiffs’ laches stood in the way of recovery. The bill was therefore dismissed in an opinion written for the court in banc by Valentine, J., certain extracts from which, fully supporting the conclusion reached, will be found in the reporter’s statement of the case.

The decree is affirmed at the costs of appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.2d 350, 332 Pa. 394, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-lytle-coal-co-pa-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack