Legal Opinion

Colonial SEC. Co. v. Levy (No. 1)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 1, 1930No. Appeals, 297 and 301PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

In this action of assumpsit, the court below discharged defendant’s rule for judgment for want of a sufficient reply to new matter set up in the affidavit of defense. Defendant appealed. Plaintiff asks that the appeal be quashed, alleging that no statute authorizes an appeal from such an order as entered by the court below. The law was in effect so ruled in O’Hara v. Parrish, 89 Pa. Superior Ct. 177, cited by appellee.

The Act of April 18,1874, P. L. 64, provides that, “in all actions now pending, or which may hereafter be brought, wherein......the plaintiff is entitled to ask for…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. O'Hara v. ParrishSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. McGee v. SINGLEYSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  2. National Cash Register Co. v. AnsellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Epstein v. KramerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  4. Colonial SEC. Co. v. Levy (No. 2)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. Gehret v. Mitten Bank Securities Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API