Kirschler v. Colonial Trust Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kirschler v. Colonial Trust Co.

100 A. 487, 255 Pa. 536, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 487

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 8, 1917

DocketAppeal, No. 135

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A. 487 (Kirschler v. Colonial Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kirschler v. Colonial Trust Co., 100 A. 487, 255 Pa. 536, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 487 (Pa. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Moschzisker,

This is a companion appeal to Kirschler, Receiver, v. Walker & Wainwright, just decided. The points involved in each are the same, except that in the case at bar this question is presented by the plaintiffs.: Did the defendant enter its plea of the statute of limitations in due time, the plea, by leave of court, having been filed' nunc pro tunc, after verdict for the plaintiff, as of a date prior to trial?

Since, in the other case, we have already decided that, on the facts presented, the statute of limitations was no bar to the action and the same ruling applies here, it be^ [538]*538comes unnecessary to determine the above stated question raised by the appellee.

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Moschzisker,

This is a companion appeal to Kirschler, Receiver, v. Walker & Wainwright, just decided. The points involved in each are the same, except that in the case at bar this question is presented by the plaintiffs.: Did the defendant enter its plea of the statute of limitations in due time, the plea, by leave of court, having been filed' nunc pro tunc, after verdict for the plaintiff, as of a date prior to trial?

Since, in the other case, we have already decided that, on the facts presented, the statute of limitations was no bar to the action and the same ruling applies here, it be^ [538]*538comes unnecessary to determine the above stated question raised by the appellee.

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A. 487, 255 Pa. 536, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirschler-v-colonial-trust-co-pa-1917.