Wolf v. Philadelphia Traction Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Rule to show cause why damages provided for in the act of May 24, 1874, in causes sued out merely for the purposes of delay, should not be imposed on appellant in appeal, No. 327, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 563, on verdict for plaintiff. The rule was granted upon the petition of Clinton O. Mayer, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Rule to show cause why damages provided for in the act of May 24, 1874, in causes sued out merely for the purposes of delay, should not be imposed on appellant in appeal, No. 327, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 563, on verdict for plaintiff. The rule was granted upon the petition of Clinton O. Mayer, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff. The averments of the petition and the counter affidavit, with statements of counsel, are fully set forth in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Stebbett.
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Chiee Justice Steeeett :
The act of May 25, 1874, under which this rule for damages, etc., was granted, declares :
“ That in all cases in which a writ of error or an appeal from a decree in equity shall delay the proceedings on the judgment of the inferior court, and in the opinion of the Supreme Court the same shall have been sued out merely for delay, damages at the rate of six per cent per annum shall be awarded upon the amount of said judgment or decree by the Supreme Court, and an attorney fee of twenty dollars and cost of printing paper-book of the defendant in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pennypacker v. DearSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Bachman v. GrossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892