Peabody v. Carr
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Linn,
This action is for conspiracy to defraud. Only one of the three defendants was served. He obtained a rule to show cause why the suit should not be nonprossed on the ground that the statement of claim disclosed that the cause of action arose in 1919 and was therefore barred by the statute of limitations. After an amended answer to the petition for the rule was filed, the court heard argument and made the rule absolute.
The judgment must be reversed for want of authority to sustain it. The Practice Act of 1915, P. L. 483, provides the method of pleading the bar of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hartig v. American Ice Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Prettyman v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
3Cited by8 opinions
- Peabody v. CarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Leuschen v. CookSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Hetzel's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Allegheny County · 1939
- Brazinski v. Mikatavage, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1937
- Hassel v. Baker, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.