Pence v. Poet

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Pence v. Poet

70 A. 832, 221 Pa. 434, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 505

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 18, 1908·No. Appeal, No. 208·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff having had his first rule for judgment discharged merely in order to accelerate the trial, had done nothing to mislead the defendant. The latter then ruled the case out for arbitration. The learned judge below being of opinion that this was done, “ evidently to keep the case off the trial list, ” granted a second rule for judgment. It was within his discretion to do so.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff having had his first rule for judgment discharged merely in order to accelerate the trial, had done nothing to mislead the defendant. The latter then ruled the case out for arbitration. The learned judge below being of opinion that this was done, “ evidently to keep the case off the trial list, ” granted a second rule for judgment. It was within his discretion to do so.

Judgment affirmed.

Pence v. Poet, 70 A. 832, 221 Pa. 434, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 505 (Pa. 1908).

Pincite

70 A. 832 (Pence v. Poet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related