Roland v. Lancaster Co. N. Bank
19 A. 951, 135 Pa. 598, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1225
Opinion
This case does not require discussion. The plaintiff had a [601] full, adequate, and convenient remedy at law, and the court below committed no error in dismissing his bill for want of jurisdiction.
Decree affirmed and the appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Roland v. Lancaster Co. N. Bank, 19 A. 951, 135 Pa. 598, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1225 (Pa. 1890).
19 A. 951 (Roland v. Lancaster Co. N. Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bishoff v. Valley Dairy Co.
153 A. 133 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Davis v. Republic Trust Co.
113 A. 689 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)
Smith v. Smith
38 Pa. Super. 251 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)