O'Malley v. De LaPuente

72 Pa. Super. 102, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 259
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 17, 1919
DocketAppeal, No. 91
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 Pa. Super. 102 (O'Malley v. De LaPuente) 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
O'Malley v. De LaPuente, 72 Pa. Super. 102, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 259 (Pa. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlady, P. J.,

The plaintiff and defendant are adjoining owners of premises on Bidge avenue, Philadelphia. A controversy arose as to the liability for a reconstructed party wall and this resulted in an action by the plaintiff against the defendant, which was submitted to a judge of the Municipal Court without the intervention of a jury. The findings of fact by the trial judge are warranted by the evidence and decisive of the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s right to recover. The conclusion reached by Mm in finding in favor of the plaintiff is fully sustained by the authorities stated in his opinion, and for the reasons therein given the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Patterson v. DiBelle
84 Pa. D. & C. 177 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1952)
Moye v. Morrison
81 Pa. Super. 251 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 Pa. Super. 102, 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omalley-v-de-lapuente-pasuperct-1919.