Rudy v. Troup

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Rudy v. Troup

67 Pa. Super. 160, 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 363

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 13, 1917·No. Appeal, No. 1·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The only error assigned is, that the court below refused to allow the defendant to enter an appeal nunc pro tunc, taken from a judgment of a justice of the peace, for the reason that he had not received notice of the entry thereof. The opinion filed by the court in discharging the rule, so fully and clearly answers the appellant’s contention that it is not necessary to add anything thereto. For the reason given therein the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The only error assigned is, that the court below refused to allow the defendant to enter an appeal nunc pro tunc, taken from a judgment of a justice of the peace, for the reason that he had not received notice of the entry thereof. The opinion filed by the court in discharging the rule, so fully and clearly answers the appellant’s contention that it is not necessary to add anything thereto. For the reason given therein the judgment is affirmed.

Rudy v. Troup, 67 Pa. Super. 160, 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 363 (Pa. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

67 Pa. Super. 160 (Rudy v. Troup) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related