Vesta Coal Co. v. Stiddard

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Vesta Coal Co. v. Stiddard

92 Pa. Super. 37, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 255

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 1, 1927

DocketAppeal 1399

StatusPublished

This text of 92 Pa. Super. 37 (Vesta Coal Co. v. Stiddard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vesta Coal Co. v. Stiddard, 92 Pa. Super. 37, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 255 (Pa. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

This case is ruled by the decision of this court in the case of The Vesta Coal Company v. William Jones, *38 appellant, No. 488 April Term, 1928, in which an opinion is this day filed. The provisions of the lease executed by Charles Stiddard, the present appellant, are identical with those of the lease considered in the J ones case. The method of procedure in the court below was the same with the single exception that, as shown by the record, a praecipe for a summons in ejectment was filed simultaneously with the filing of the agreement for the amicable action, but no writ was issued. The filing of this praecipe does not create any substantial distinction between this case and the Jones case except that one of the alleged irregularities relied upon in that case does not here exist.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in the case referred to the motion, filed at bar, to dismiss this appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed at the costs of appellant.

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

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

This case is ruled by the decision of this court in the case of The Vesta Coal Company v. William Jones, *38 appellant, No. 488 April Term, 1928, in which an opinion is this day filed. The provisions of the lease executed by Charles Stiddard, the present appellant, are identical with those of the lease considered in the J ones case. The method of procedure in the court below was the same with the single exception that, as shown by the record, a praecipe for a summons in ejectment was filed simultaneously with the filing of the agreement for the amicable action, but no writ was issued. The filing of this praecipe does not create any substantial distinction between this case and the Jones case except that one of the alleged irregularities relied upon in that case does not here exist.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in the case referred to the motion, filed at bar, to dismiss this appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed at the costs of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 Pa. Super. 37, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vesta-coal-co-v-stiddard-pasuperct-1927.