Straw v. Murphy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 75, Oct. T., 1896, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1895, No. 2, discharging a rule to show cause why a sum in bank should not be paid to the contractor. Rule to show cause why the sum of $1,172.72 in the Bank of Secured Savings should not be paid to H. J. Smith. Before White, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was order discharging rule.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
This case as the learned judge below remarked is very badly mixed, and the court has added greatly to the uncertainty by its failure to indicate the grounds of its action in discharging the appellant’s rule for an order that the fund in bank be paid to him.. Not having the assistance of its views op this point we have been obliged to seek for the reasons through a very confused record, and have been forced to the conclusion that if the rule was discharged on the merits the result was in conflict with the court’s previous action on the rule to strike off satis*378fact…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Appeal of GivenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Frauenthal's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Gordinier's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Wilson v. BuchananSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Morgan's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Erie Lackawanna Railway Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Sherwood Bros. Co. v. KennedySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Graham Roller Bearing Corp. v. StoneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Commonwealth v. PriceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900