Hoppes v. Houtz

Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas

Hoppes v. Houtz

19 A. 312, 133 Pa. 34, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 866

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County·Decided March 3, 1890·No. No. 184·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This appeal is a substitute for a certiorari and must be treated as such. It brings up nothing but the record. From it we learn that the proceeding below was an attachment under the act of 1869, and that the court dissolved it. The record does not show the ground upon which the attachment was dissolved. Nor is it material, as the order was interlocutory and not reviewable here. It was a matter within the discretion of the court below, and we have nothing before us to show that this discretion was abused.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This appeal is a substitute for a certiorari and must be treated as such. It brings up nothing but the record. From it we learn that the proceeding below was an attachment under the act of 1869, and that the court dissolved it. The record does not show the ground upon which the attachment was dissolved. Nor is it material, as the order was interlocutory and not reviewable here. It was a matter within the discretion of the court below, and we have nothing before us to show that this discretion was abused.

Order affirmed.

Hoppes v. Houtz, 19 A. 312, 133 Pa. 34, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 866 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

19 A. 312 (Hoppes v. Houtz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related