Hartford v. Smith
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania'; James S. Young, Judge. Action by P. C. Hartford against Roland H. Smith and another, doing business as A. J. Davis & Co. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
J. B. McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.
[1] The Pennsylvania act of 1887 (P. E. 271; 3 Pepp. & Lew. Dig. Laws, 5819, 5825) undertakes to abolish the distinctions theretofore existing between actions ex contractu and actions ex delicto, but only so far as relates to procedure. Sections 1 and 2 put this restriction affirmatively — “so far as relates to procedure” — while section 8 with greater emphasis puts it negatively as well as affirmatively:
“The true intent and meaning of this act is that * * * as to the action [evidently, actions] herein recited, it applies to the procedure onty, and the legal…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Fritz v. HathawaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Corry v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Osborn v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Davis v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Winkleblake v. DykeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Parker State Bank v. PenninggtonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925