Robinson v. Floyd

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Robinson v. Floyd

25 A. 1040, 153 Pa. 98, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1055

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 3, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 38

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A. 1040 (Robinson v. Floyd) 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

Robinson v. Floyd, 25 A. 1040, 153 Pa. 98, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1055 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr* Justice Heydrick,

The affidavits of defence filed by the appellants in this case do not differ in any material respect from those filed by the same parties in Campbell v. Floyd et al., supra, and, therefore, [99]*99if there were nothing else to differentiate the cases, the reasons given in the latter case would require the affirmance of the judgment in this. But while in Campbell v. Floyd et al. judgment was given against all the defendants except those whose affidavits of defence were held by the learned court below to be sufficient, in the present case judgment was refused as to two of the defendants, William Floyd and Thomas M. Marshall, who made no defence at all. This was a severance in the proceedings not authorized by the common law or by any of our statutes, and for this alone, for the reasons given in Murtland v. Floyd et al., decided at this term, [the next case] the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed and a procedendo awarded.

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

Opinion by

Mr* Justice Heydrick,

The affidavits of defence filed by the appellants in this case do not differ in any material respect from those filed by the same parties in Campbell v. Floyd et al., supra, and, therefore, [99]*99if there were nothing else to differentiate the cases, the reasons given in the latter case would require the affirmance of the judgment in this. But while in Campbell v. Floyd et al. judgment was given against all the defendants except those whose affidavits of defence were held by the learned court below to be sufficient, in the present case judgment was refused as to two of the defendants, William Floyd and Thomas M. Marshall, who made no defence at all. This was a severance in the proceedings not authorized by the common law or by any of our statutes, and for this alone, for the reasons given in Murtland v. Floyd et al., decided at this term, [the next case] the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed and a procedendo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A. 1040, 153 Pa. 98, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-floyd-pa-1893.