Sherwood v. M'Kinney

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Sherwood v. M'Kinney

5 Whart. 435, 1840 Pa. LEXIS 231

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 2, 1840·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case is entirely within the principle of Houk v. Knop. There was no neglect of anything that appertained to the official duty of the justice; who had the transcript ready for delivery within the time. Instead of attending to the filing of it in [437] his proper person or by his counsel, the appellant committed it to the justice ; and the negligence which ensued was consequently his own- • -

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This case is entirely within the principle of Houk v. Knop. There was no neglect of anything that appertained to the official duty of the justice; who had the transcript ready for delivery within the time. Instead of attending to the filing of it in [437] his proper person or by his counsel, the appellant committed it to the justice ; and the negligence which ensued was consequently his own- • -

Judgment affirmed.

Sherwood v. M'Kinney, 5 Whart. 435, 1840 Pa. LEXIS 231 (Pa. 1840).

Pincite

5 Whart. 435 (Sherwood v. M'Kinney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related