Bromley v. Lippincott
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
January 7,1898. Petition filed and rule granted to stow cause why the penalty in sec. 2 of the act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 72 should not be awarded. Appeal by defendant from judgment of C. P. No. 8, Phila. Co., for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
January 7,1898. Petition filed and rule granted to stow cause why the penalty in sec. 2 of the act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 72 should not be awarded. Appeal by defendant from judgment of C. P. No. 8, Phila. Co., for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Plaintiff’s petition alleged as follows : On January 22, 1897, and previous thereto, he was the bona fide holder for value of the promissory note of which the following is a copy: “$8800. Philadelphia, Oct. 22, 1896. “ Three months after date 1 promise to pay to the order of Howard W. Lippincott, Thirty-three hundred Dollars, at 305 Drexel…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The act of 1897, last clause of sec. 21, under which this rule was granted, is a substitute for the Act of May 25, 1874, P. L. 227, and provides as follows; “ In all cases where the appellate court shall be of opinion that the appeal was sued out merely for delay, it shall award, as further costs, additional attorney’s fees of $25.00 and damages at the rate of six per centum per annum in addition to legal interest.”
This case appears to come clearly within the mischief intended to be remedied by the clause of section 21 above quoted. *465If properly enforced this act will have a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Laflin & Rand Co. v. Steytler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1892
- Serfass v. StevensonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898