Danville v. Rhodes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 166, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., June T., 1890, No. 628, striking off warrant of attorney. Rule to strike off warrant of attorney. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was order striking off warrant of attorney. cited 1 Dan. Chan. Pr. 308.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
On the seventh day of June, 1892, D. C. Harrington, Esq., an attorney at law regularly admitted to practice in the courts of Philadelphia filed the bill in equity in this case as the attorney of the plaintiff.
On the eighteenth day of the same month a rule was entered on the minutes by the prothonotary, on the direction of Crawford & Laughlin, Attys. for Rhodes et al. and the D. H. & W. Railroad Co., requiring D. C. Harrington to file his warrant of attorney. No affidavit or statement of facts tending to throw doubt upon his authority was filed and no application…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Campbell v. GalbreathSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gliwa v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Shure v. Goodimate Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Taylor v. SiersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- McAlpine StreetSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Babcock v. Wambaugh & Crescent Oil Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Blair County1924
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.