Orliner v. Borowski
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 234, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1916, No. 3275, making absolute rule to show cause why the appeal -filed should not be stricken off in case of Philip Orliner v. Raymond Borowski. Rule to strike off appeal. Error assigned was order making absolute rule to strike off appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiff brought an action before a magistrate in the City of Philadelphia to recover the sum of twenty dollars alleged to be due on a lease of premises at 105 Roxborough street. • Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant took a transcript of appeal which was regularly .filed in the Court of Common Pleas. The cause of action recited in the transcript is as follows: “Plaintiff claims $20.00 for one month’s *207rent of premises 105 Roxborough street, due March 1, 1916, in advance under a lease.” Then follows a recital of the plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. LoftusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Foss v. BoganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Schneider v. BatesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hibberd B. Worrell & Co. v. Pennsylvania Petroleum TransportationPennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · 1946
- Lenet v. Weinster, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1955