Kirkpatrick v. Hopkins
2 Miles 277
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County·Decided December 22, 1838·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
the defendant had complied with the requisitions of the act of Congress, we should entertain this application favourably. But he has not complied in two particulars. The petition is not signed by him, nor “ at the time of entering his appearance,” did he offer the surety required by the act. See 2 Troubat and Haly 533.
Rule discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kirkpatrick v. Hopkins, 2 Miles 277 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1838).
2 Miles 277 (Kirkpatrick v. Hopkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Shaft v. . Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co.
67 N.Y. 544 (New York Court of Appeals, 1876)
Best v. New York Life Ins.
2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 329 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1872)
Fisk v. Union Pacific Railroad
10 Abb. Pr. 457 (S.D. New York, 1871)
Robinson v. Potter
43 N.H. 188 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1861)