Houk v. Knop

2 Watts 72
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1833·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Had the justice refused the appellant a transcript, in time for the filing of the appeal, the case would have been a strong one for him. There was however no refusal, but a promise to furnish it when the matter in hand should be finished; on which, instead of waiting for that, and giving his personal attention to the matter, the appellant committed the whole to the care of the justice, not only to furnish the transcript, but institute the appeal in the office; so that having made the justice his agent, he is bound by his negligence.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Houk v. Knop, 2 Watts 72 (Pa. 1833).

2 Watts 72 (Houk v. Knop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Klugman v. Gimbel Bros.
182 A.2d 223 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1962)
Friend v. Russell
14 Pa. D. & C. 138 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1930)
Fuel City Mfg. Co. v. Waynesburg Products Corp.
112 A. 145 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Kennemuth v. Lewis
61 Pa. Super. 251 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1915)
Law v. Groves
47 Pa. Super. 411 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Ward v. Letzkus
25 A. 778 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)
Brannan v. Mesick
1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 24 (Cal. District Court, 1857)