Mitchell v. Richmond
30 A. 486, 164 Pa. 566, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 1121
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 5, 1894·No. Appeal, No. 43·Published·Cited by 7 cases
Opinion
There is nothing in the third and fourth specifications of error that would justify a reversal of the judgment. The first and second specifications relate to the question of law reserved. That question has been so fully considered and satisfactorily disposed of by the learned president of the court below, in his opinion sent up with the record, that little, if anything, can be added thereto; and we- therefore affirm the judgment on Iris opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mitchell v. Richmond, 30 A. 486, 164 Pa. 566, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 1121 (Pa. 1894).
30 A. 486 (Mitchell v. Richmond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lillis v. Krack
38 Pa. D. & C. 551 (Erie County Court Common Pleas, 1940)
Children's Aid Society v. Benford
26 Pa. Super. 555 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
First National Bank v. Taylor
76 P. 425 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1904)
Howard v. Burns
76 N.W. 202 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1898)
Bank of Commerce v. First National Bank
150 Ind. 588 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1898)
Stafford v. Harper
32 La. Ann. 1076 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1880)
Succession of McCloskey
32 La. Ann. 146 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1880)