Legal Opinion

Hildock v. Grosso

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 23, 1939No. Appeal, 36PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion bv

Mr. Justice Schaffer,

This appeal is from an order of the court below taking off a compulsory nonsuit. There is no appeal from such an order and therefore the appeal must be quashed: Dellacasse v. Floyd, 332 Pa. 218, 2 A. (2d) 860.

The quashing of the appeal means that the case may be retried. If the testimony on a second trial should be the same as on the one we are reviewing, such retrial would be a useless proceeding. The nonsuit was removed because of a mistaken view of the law by a majority of the court below; Judge Case, who dissented, had the right view.

Defendant owned the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Moon v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  2. Dellacasse v. Floyd Exrs.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. Piquet Et Ux. v. WazelleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Crouse v. LubinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  5. Warman v. CraigSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Loch v. ConfairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. Breslin by Breslin v. RidarelliSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Mazi v. McANLISSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  4. Hagans v. Constitution State Service Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. American Automobile Ins. v. Penn Mutual Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API