In re Doylestown Distilling Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In re Doylestown Distilling Co.

9 Pa. Super. 96, 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 123

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 15, 1898

DocketAppeal, No. 168

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 Pa. Super. 96 (In re Doylestown Distilling Co.) 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

In re Doylestown Distilling Co., 9 Pa. Super. 96, 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 123 (Pa. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee. Curiam,

We are asked to reverse the order of the court below upon the ground that the petitioners were not accorded a hearing. The order recites the fact that there was a hearing at the time appointed by the standing rule; that the evidence submitted on the hearing was considered; and that due regard was had to the number and character of the petitioners. There is nothing in the court minutes which is inconsistent with the record thus made up. Construing the record as a whole, and accepting it as verity, there was a hearing on May 9, the time appointed by the standing rule, and the matter was then held [99]*99under advisement until June 8, when the final order was made. The minutes of May 9 do not show that the application was continued for further hearing; therefore it was not necessary under the rule of court to fix a time when the decision would be rendered. We need not discuss the case further. We have said enough to show that the assignments of error cannot be sustained without impeaching the record, which, of course, we cannot do.

The order is affirmed.

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

Pee. Curiam,

We are asked to reverse the order of the court below upon the ground that the petitioners were not accorded a hearing. The order recites the fact that there was a hearing at the time appointed by the standing rule; that the evidence submitted on the hearing was considered; and that due regard was had to the number and character of the petitioners. There is nothing in the court minutes which is inconsistent with the record thus made up. Construing the record as a whole, and accepting it as verity, there was a hearing on May 9, the time appointed by the standing rule, and the matter was then held [99]*99under advisement until June 8, when the final order was made. The minutes of May 9 do not show that the application was continued for further hearing; therefore it was not necessary under the rule of court to fix a time when the decision would be rendered. We need not discuss the case further. We have said enough to show that the assignments of error cannot be sustained without impeaching the record, which, of course, we cannot do.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Pa. Super. 96, 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-doylestown-distilling-co-pasuperct-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack