Hillman Gas Coal Co. v. Bozicevich

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Hillman Gas Coal Co. v. Bozicevich

92 Pa. Super. 39, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 257

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 16, 1927

DocketAppeal 883

StatusPublished

This text of 92 Pa. Super. 39 (Hillman Gas Coal Co. v. Bozicevich) 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

Hillman Gas Coal Co. v. Bozicevich, 92 Pa. Super. 39, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 257 (Pa. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

The single feature distinguishing this ease from that of Chartiers Creek Coal Company v. Joe Bielski, appellant, at No. 446 April Term, 1928, in which we have this day filed an opinion, is that the lease executed by this appellant contains no waiver of his right to take this appeal for the purpose of having the question of the validity of the judgment confessed against him under the provisions of the lease reviewed. The lease does contain a “release of all errors” in the proceedings relative to the entering of the amicable action of ejectment therein provided for and the confession of the judgment. The distinction to which we have referred brings this case within the class of cases ruled by the judgment which we entered on November 23, 1927, in the case of Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corporation v. Robert Potts, appellant, at No. 75 April Term, 1928. For the reasons stated in the opinion filed in that case it is clear that the court below committed no error in this case.

The decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County refusing to strike off the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

The single feature distinguishing this ease from that of Chartiers Creek Coal Company v. Joe Bielski, appellant, at No. 446 April Term, 1928, in which we have this day filed an opinion, is that the lease executed by this appellant contains no waiver of his right to take this appeal for the purpose of having the question of the validity of the judgment confessed against him under the provisions of the lease reviewed. The lease does contain a “release of all errors” in the proceedings relative to the entering of the amicable action of ejectment therein provided for and the confession of the judgment. The distinction to which we have referred brings this case within the class of cases ruled by the judgment which we entered on November 23, 1927, in the case of Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corporation v. Robert Potts, appellant, at No. 75 April Term, 1928. For the reasons stated in the opinion filed in that case it is clear that the court below committed no error in this case.

The decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County refusing to strike off the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 Pa. Super. 39, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hillman-gas-coal-co-v-bozicevich-pasuperct-1927.