Haspel v. O'Brien

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Haspel v. O'Brien

32 Pa. Super. 147, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 306

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 19, 1906·No. Appeal, No. 104·Published

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

A reconsideration of the substantial question raised on these appeals, with the aid of the argument of the appellant’s counsel, has failed to convince us that our rulings in Martin v. Greenwood, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 245, and Oil City B. & L. [148] Assn. v. Shanfelter, 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 251, were erroneous, and ought to be overruled. Nor can we see that any useful purpose would be served by .further discussion of the question on our part.

The order appealed from in each of the foregoing cases is affirmed at the appellant’s costs.

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

Pee Curiam,

A reconsideration of the substantial question raised on these appeals, with the aid of the argument of the appellant’s counsel, has failed to convince us that our rulings in Martin v. Greenwood, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 245, and Oil City B. & L. [148] Assn. v. Shanfelter, 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 251, were erroneous, and ought to be overruled. Nor can we see that any useful purpose would be served by .further discussion of the question on our part.

The order appealed from in each of the foregoing cases is affirmed at the appellant’s costs.

Haspel v. O'Brien, 32 Pa. Super. 147, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 306 (Pa. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

32 Pa. Super. 147 (Haspel v. O'Brien) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related