Kaumagraph Co. v. Thissen Silk Co.
This text of 42 Pa. Super. 110 (Kaumagraph Co. v. Thissen Silk 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.
Opinion
This is an appeal from the discharge of a rule to show cause why the transcript of appeal from a justice of the peace should not be permitted to be filed nunc pro tunc, the transcript not having been filed on or before the first day of the next term after the appeal was taken.
Upon the most liberal view that may be taken of the power of the court in such cases, the learned judge has shown quite clearly in the opinion filed by him, that the application was properly refused. We can add nothing profitable to what he has said.
The order is affirmed at the costs of the appellant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
42 Pa. Super. 110, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaumagraph-co-v-thissen-silk-co-pasuperct-1910.