Birdsall v. Delaware & H. Co.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
At Raw. Action by'James C. Birdsall and others against the Delaware & Hudson Company. On rule to show cause why a fi. fa. should not issue to enforce collection of judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
WTTMRR, District Judge.
Plaintiffs brought suit, on behalf of themselves and others interested in a coal lease with the Delaware & Hudson Company, for recovery of royalties, and, upon recovery of verdict and appeal to the Circuit Court, that court expressed the opinion that this court would afford proper protection to defendant by requiring proper releases from parties interested in the verdict, before payment. The amount of money to be paid is no longer in controversy. The question remaining has to do1 solely with the proper parties required to release defendant on payment of the verdict. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Yorks's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Estate of LazarusPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Luzerne County · 1892
- McFadden's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Wagner's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Appeal of ChapmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In Re Estate of GilroySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Pratt v. CheneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- McManus v. Acklin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County1947
- Roberts v. GarbettSuperior Court of Rhode Island · 1933