McCoy v. Hetzl
This text of 84 Pa. Super. 72 (McCoy v. Hetzl) 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.
Opinion
Appellees’ first proposition is, that nothing in this record will sustain a reversal, calling our attention to the defective character of the 31 assignments of error filed; it is true, they violate our rules 23 and 27; but, what is *73 more serious, appellees further insist that as the final decree was not assigned for error, the appeal should be dismissed. We are constrained to accede to that view: Prenatt v. Messenger Printing Co., 241 Pa. 267, 269; Hotel Co. v. Ry. Co., 242 Pa. 569, 573; Browarsky’s Est., 252 Pa. 35, 38.
Appeal dismissed at cost of appellants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
84 Pa. Super. 72, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccoy-v-hetzl-pasuperct-1924.