King v. Cooper
This text of 2 Miles 176 (King v. Cooper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant is a person “ not residing within this commonwealth,” and it not being averred, we cannot infer [177]*177from the circumstance that he was here, on the day of the issuing, twice for very short periods of time, that he was within the county “ at the time of the issuing ” of the writ. (See Stroud’s Purd. tit. Action.)
Rule discharged.
Vide Shipman v. Woodbury, ante, p. 67.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Miles 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-cooper-pactcomplphilad-1838.