Legal Opinion

Murray Et Ux. v. Lavinsky

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 13, 1935No. Appeals, 279 and 280PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

The appellant has not seen fit to print all the testimony in the record, nor all of the lower court’s charge. We take this as an admission that there was evidence supporting the verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs against appellant, the original defendant, and that he has no fault to find with the charge of the court except its ruling that there could be no verdict in favor of the wife plaintiff against the added defendant.

The appellant, on being summoned as the original defendant, had Simon August brought in by scire facias, under the Act of June 22, 1931, P. L. 663,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Koontz v. Messer & Quaker State Oil Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  2. Jackson v. GleasonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Fisher v. DiehlSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  2. Hunsucker v. High Point Bending & Chair Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Rau v. MankoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  4. Land Title Bank & Trust Co. v. Cheltenham National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  5. Burke v. Duquesne Light Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

14 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