Murray v. Randall

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Murray v. Randall

101 A. 955, 258 Pa. 113, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 803

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 7, 1917

DocketAppeal, No. 202

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A. 955 (Murray v. Randall) 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

Murray v. Randall, 101 A. 955, 258 Pa. 113, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 803 (Pa. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In this ejectment one of the two defendants, John Morrett, filed a disclaimer before the case was called for trial. Notwithstanding this, a verdict was rendered against both defendants, and judgment thereon was duly [115]*115entered. A. Blanche Matiser, the other defendant, appealed from that judgment to this court, but subsequently suffered a non pros. Shortly afterwards she presented her petition to the court below, asking that the judgment be stricken off, for the reason that the verdict had been improperly rendered against herself and Morrett, in view of the latter’s disclaimer before the trial. This petition was dismissed, for the good reason that Morrett himself was not complaining of the judgment against him, and the entry of it in no manner impaired or invalidated the judgment against the appellant.

Appeal dismissed at her costs.

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

Per Curiam,

In this ejectment one of the two defendants, John Morrett, filed a disclaimer before the case was called for trial. Notwithstanding this, a verdict was rendered against both defendants, and judgment thereon was duly [115]*115entered. A. Blanche Matiser, the other defendant, appealed from that judgment to this court, but subsequently suffered a non pros. Shortly afterwards she presented her petition to the court below, asking that the judgment be stricken off, for the reason that the verdict had been improperly rendered against herself and Morrett, in view of the latter’s disclaimer before the trial. This petition was dismissed, for the good reason that Morrett himself was not complaining of the judgment against him, and the entry of it in no manner impaired or invalidated the judgment against the appellant.

Appeal dismissed at her costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A. 955, 258 Pa. 113, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-randall-pa-1917.