Rice v. Nirdlinger

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Rice v. Nirdlinger

41 Pa. Super. 238, 1909 Pa. Super. LEXIS 39

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 13, 1909·No. Appeal, No. 19·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The question for decision is very clearly brought out in the two opinions filed by the learned judge of the common pleas, the first rendered upon the rule to open the judgment against the Hepner Hair Emporium Company, and the second upon the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in the present case. The order making absolute the latter rule is the one brought up for review in this appeal, and is fully sustained by the opinion of the learned judge, in which we all concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The question for decision is very clearly brought out in the two opinions filed by the learned judge of the common pleas, the first rendered upon the rule to open the judgment against the Hepner Hair Emporium Company, and the second upon the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in the present case. The order making absolute the latter rule is the one brought up for review in this appeal, and is fully sustained by the opinion of the learned judge, in which we all concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Rice v. Nirdlinger, 41 Pa. Super. 238, 1909 Pa. Super. LEXIS 39 (Pa. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

41 Pa. Super. 238 (Rice v. Nirdlinger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related