Schmid v. Kessler

Northampton County Court of Common Pleas

Schmid v. Kessler

6 Pa. D. & C. 580, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 291

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County

DecidedMay 4, 1925

DocketNo. 63

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Pa. D. & C. 580 (Schmid v. Kessler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmid v. Kessler, 6 Pa. D. & C. 580, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 291 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Stewart, P. J.,

A rule on the plaintiffs to enter security for costs issued April 30, 1925. The case is No. 30 on the trial list for next week. After notice to counsel for the plaintiffs, counsel for defendant asked that this case be continued on account of the pendency of the above rule. That application was resisted by the plaintiffs’ counsel, who contends that the rule must be discharged and that the case ought not to be continued. We agree with the latter contention. In Loveland et al. v. Murnin & Co., Inc., 19 Northamp. Co. Repr. 398, we said: “It is well settled that a rule will never be granted which will delay the trial of a case.” The application to continue is denied. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that he first learned that the plaintiffs had removed from the State on April 21st last, and that he made his application for security without any delay. If that is so and if the case is not disposed of next week, the rule for security for costs may be made absolute. See Fried v. Sacchetti, 14 Northamp. Co. Repr. 200. We make no order as to that at the present time.

From Henry D. Maxwell, Easton, Pa.

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

Stewart, P. J.,

A rule on the plaintiffs to enter security for costs issued April 30, 1925. The case is No. 30 on the trial list for next week. After notice to counsel for the plaintiffs, counsel for defendant asked that this case be continued on account of the pendency of the above rule. That application was resisted by the plaintiffs’ counsel, who contends that the rule must be discharged and that the case ought not to be continued. We agree with the latter contention. In Loveland et al. v. Murnin & Co., Inc., 19 Northamp. Co. Repr. 398, we said: “It is well settled that a rule will never be granted which will delay the trial of a case.” The application to continue is denied. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that he first learned that the plaintiffs had removed from the State on April 21st last, and that he made his application for security without any delay. If that is so and if the case is not disposed of next week, the rule for security for costs may be made absolute. See Fried v. Sacchetti, 14 Northamp. Co. Repr. 200. We make no order as to that at the present time.

From Henry D. Maxwell, Easton, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Pa. D. & C. 580, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmid-v-kessler-pactcomplnortha-1925.