Firth & Foster Bros. v. Hamill
31 A. 676, 167 Pa. 382, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 915
Opinion
The questions involved in this case are clearly stated and correctly disposed of by the learned referee. We find nothing in the record that would justify us in sustaining any of the specifications of error; nor do we think that either of them requires special notice. The judgment of the court below, dismissing appellant’s exceptions and confirming the finding of the referee in favor of plaintiff, is affirmed on the referee’s report.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Firth & Foster Bros. v. Hamill, 31 A. 676, 167 Pa. 382, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 915 (Pa. 1895).
31 A. 676 (Firth & Foster Bros. v. Hamill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Zimmerman v. Bowersox Precision Casting, Inc. (In Re Herman Hassinger, Inc.)
41 B.R. 787 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1984)
Quad/Graphics, Inc. v. R. L. Newport & Co. (In Re R. L. Newport & Co.)
10 B.R. 436 (S.D. New York, 1981)
August v. Aldan Rubber Co.
277 F. Supp. 652 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1967)
Greenberg v. Mowrer
64 Pa. D. & C. 177 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1948)
Hecht v. Valkone Dye & Finishing Works
66 Pa. Super. 97 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Commonwealth v. Huston
46 Pa. Super. 172 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Commonwealth v. Sanderson
40 Pa. Super. 416 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)