Legal Opinion

Schrenkeisen v. Kishbaugh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 23, 1894No. Appeal, No. 60PublishedCited by 34 opinions

Appeal, No. 60, July T., 1893, by defendants, W. B. Ivishbaugh et al., trading as W. B. Kishbaugh & Co., and Geo. W. Coslett et al., from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., May T., 1892, No. 197, making absolute rule to strike off appeal from award of arbitrators. Rule to strike off appeal from award of arbitrators in replevin.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 60, July T., 1893, by defendants, W. B. Ivishbaugh et al., trading as W. B. Kishbaugh & Co., and Geo. W. Coslett et al., from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., May T., 1892, No. 197, making absolute rule to strike off appeal from award of arbitrators. Rule to strike off appeal from award of arbitrators in replevin. From the record it appeared that, on March 23, 1892, plaintiffs issued a writ of replevin against defendants, and one of the defendants, George W. Coslett, gave bond and retained the property. Plaintiffs subsequently, after declaration filed, took out a rule of compulsory…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Mitchell,

Where a statute fixes the time within which an act must be done, as for example an appeal taken, courts have no power to extend it, or to allow the act to be done at a later day, as a matter of indulgence. Something more than mere hardship is necessary to justify an extension of time, or its equivalent, an allowance of the act nunc pro tunc: Ward v. Letzkus, 152 Pa. 318. But where in due and regular course the case comes before the court for its action, whether interlocutory or final, the court has an inherent and necessary power to stay all proceedings,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ward v. LetzkusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Carr v. McGovernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
  3. Ellison v. BuckleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
  4. Rice v. ConsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
  5. Walker v. GrahamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Nixon v. NixonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Wise v. Cambridge Springs BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. Guy v. Stoecklein Baking Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Overmiller v. D. E. Horn & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  5. Singer v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916

29 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