Kilbride v. City of Philadelphia

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Kilbride v. City of Philadelphia

71 Pa. Super. 201, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 62

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 28, 1919

DocketNo. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 71 Pa. Super. 201 (Kilbride v. City of Philadelphia) 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

Kilbride v. City of Philadelphia, 71 Pa. Super. 201, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 62 (Pa. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlady, P. J.,

This case was tried with that of Lillian M. Kilbride, against the same defendant, and a separate verdict rendered in favor of the husband. A single appeal covering both cases was taken and the two cases were heard together. On argument at bar attention was called to this irregularity, but counsel for the defendant made no motion to require the appellant to elect which appeal he would pursue, and without such motion we do not feel warranted in quashing either appeal. The practice is highly irregular, and on proper motion the court would require the appellant to make his election of the appeal he intended to pursue.

For the reasons given in an opinion this day filed in Lillian M. Kilbride v. City of Philadelphia, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Orlady, P. J.,

This case was tried with that of Lillian M. Kilbride, against the same defendant, and a separate verdict rendered in favor of the husband. A single appeal covering both cases was taken and the two cases were heard together. On argument at bar attention was called to this irregularity, but counsel for the defendant made no motion to require the appellant to elect which appeal he would pursue, and without such motion we do not feel warranted in quashing either appeal. The practice is highly irregular, and on proper motion the court would require the appellant to make his election of the appeal he intended to pursue.

For the reasons given in an opinion this day filed in Lillian M. Kilbride v. City of Philadelphia, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 Pa. Super. 201, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilbride-v-city-of-philadelphia-pasuperct-1919.