Mehaffey v. Fink
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 38, April T., 1900, by plaintiff, in a suit of F. M. Meliaffey against H. G. G. Fink, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dee. Term, 1896, No. 336, making absolute rule for arrest of judgment. Per Curiam. Motion in arrest of judgment. Before the court in banc. It appears from the record that this was an action of assumpsit brought before an alderman.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 38, April T., 1900, by plaintiff, in a suit of F. M. Meliaffey against H. G. G. Fink, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dee. Term, 1896, No. 336, making absolute rule for arrest of judgment. Per Curiam. Motion in arrest of judgment. Before the court in banc. It appears from the record that this was an action of assumpsit brought before an alderman. After hearing judgment was rendered by the alderman for the amount of $47.00. Defendant appealed to the common pleas. A statement and affidavit of claim were filed alleging the cause of action. Defendant answers and pleads…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This was an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of a justice of the peace. On October 26, 1898, the cause was called for trial, and neither the defendant nor his counsel being present judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the amount of the judgment entered by the justice, in accordance with the rule of the court below. On October 31, 1898, the defendant moved for and obtained a rule to show cause why judgment should not be arrested, upon the ground that the statement of claim showed no cause of action that would support a judgment. At the same time he obtained a rule…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Palethorp v. SchmidtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
3Cited by2 opinions
- Donley v. SemansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Kovach v. Union Drawn Steel Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930