McIlhaney v. Holland
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tlie Court of Common Pleas, of Fayette county: Of July Term, 1885, No. 181. This in the court below was a rule to show cause why the appeal in this case should not be stricken off. The court, Inghram, P. J., made the rule absolute and dismissed the appeal.
Read the full summary
Error to tlie Court of Common Pleas, of Fayette county: Of July Term, 1885, No. 181. This in the court below was a rule to show cause why the appeal in this case should not be stricken off. The court, Inghram, P. J., made the rule absolute and dismissed the appeal. The following facts appear from the record and the depositions taken on the rule: On the 9th of January, 1883, Abraham Holland sued James and Andrew J. Mcllhaney, before Justice J. M. Lytle, of New Haven, Fayette County, Pennsylvania, for cutting growing timber on lands of the plaintiff. On the 26th of January the parties appeared…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was filed February 15th, 1886.
2Per curiam
Where a defective recognizance has been entered, the appellant may be permitted to perfect it, or if without fault of his he has been prevented from appealing from the judgment of a justice, by the act of the latter, an appeal may be allowed, nunc, pro tunc, if asked for in reasonable time. In this case no recognizance was entered. No security was given or offered. The omission so to do was not caused by any act of the justice. On the contrary the justice testifies that he told the plaintiff in error he must enter bail or he could not…
3Cited by16 opinions
- Nixon v. NixonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Adelman, Trustee v. J. McShain, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- New Castle Metal Products Co. v. CampbellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- First National Bank v. FairSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Schwartz Bros. v. Adams Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.