Oakland Borough v. Boyden

22 Pa. Super. 278, 1903 Pa. Super. LEXIS 203
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 11, 1903
DocketAppeal, No. 72
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 Pa. Super. 278 (Oakland Borough v. Boyden) 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.

Bluebook
Oakland Borough v. Boyden, 22 Pa. Super. 278, 1903 Pa. Super. LEXIS 203 (Pa. Ct. App. 1903).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Upon the argument of this case, we were asked to quash the appeal for the reason that the appellant’s paper-book was fatally defective. The statement of the question involved is whohv [279]*279wanting. The paper-book is not complete in that the record is not printed in full. It is further apparent, from an inspection of the assignments of error, that they are not specifically assigned in accordance with our rules, the general conclusions of the court only being set forth and not the language in which the said conclusions are stated.

• Anyone of these objections would be fatal but combined they are of such a grave character that they cannot be remedied by amendment. The motion of the appellee is, therefore, allowed. Appeal quashed.

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

Related

Rahm's Estate
82 A. 941 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
McMellen v. Williamson
32 Pa. Super. 263 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Pa. Super. 278, 1903 Pa. Super. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oakland-borough-v-boyden-pasuperct-1903.