Swainbank v. Yoder

79 Pa. Super. 132, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 198
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 13, 1922·No. Appeal, No. 75·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

This appeal is from the dissolution of a preliminary induction and from the dismissal at the same time by the court, of its own motion, of plaintiff’s bill before answer had been filed. The appellant complains of the dismissal of the bill. The dismissal of the bill, not even asked for by counsel for defendant, before answer or demurrer had been filed, was wholly irregular, and the action of the court must be reversed: Davis et al. v. Porch Bros., Inc., 268 Pa. 376; Wright et al. v. Barber, 270 Pa. 186.

The decree dismissing the bill is reversed and the bill reinstated with a procedendo, the costs below and on this appeal to be disposed of on final decree.

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

Swainbank v. Yoder, 79 Pa. Super. 132, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 198 (Pa. Ct. App. 1922).

79 Pa. Super. 132 (Swainbank v. Yoder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hackett v. Sickle
493 A.2d 785 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)
Boyle v. O'BANNON
458 A.2d 183 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Allegheny County v. Milk Control Commission
207 A.2d 838 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1965)
Maroni v. West Penn Power Co.
91 Pa. Super. 259 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Mauser v. Lerch
7 Pa. D. & C. 242 (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)