Legal Opinion

Beishline v. Tatterfield

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County

Decided October 15, 1934No. 78Published

1Opinion of the Court

Stewart, P. J.,

This was a rule to show cause why depositions of the defendant should not be taken at Mexico City, Mexico, to be used on the trial of this case. The petition set forth that that was the defendant’s residence; that his wife was sick, and that he could not attend the trial of above case at Easton, Pa.; that his wages were so small that he could not afford the expense of traveling to Easton. The facts set forth are very similar to Sims v. Cooper et al., infra. An answer to the rule was filed alleging substantially that the reasons in the petition are not sufficient, and that “The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. International Coal Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  2. Meckes v. Pocono Mountain Water Supply Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
  3. Nace v. Neff College of OratorySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  4. Grimsley v. BlackSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  5. Middleby's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API