Kaumagraph Co. v. Thissen Silk Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Kaumagraph Co. v. Thissen Silk Co.

42 Pa. Super. 110, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 299

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 3, 1910·No. Appeal, No. 172·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

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

Per Curiam,

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.

Kaumagraph Co. v. Thissen Silk Co., 42 Pa. Super. 110, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 299 (Pa. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

42 Pa. Super. 110 (Kaumagraph Co. v. Thissen Silk Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related