Legal Opinion

Cassidy v. Knapp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 8, 1895No. Appeal No. 104PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Appeal No. 104, Jan T., 1895, by defendant, from decrees of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 1696, granting a preliminary injunction, and subsequently refusing to dissolve it. Bill in equity to restrain proceedings before a magistrate. The bill was indorsed with the notice to appear within fourteen days formerly in use under the old rules, and not with the notice to appear and answer within fifteen days, as required by the amended equity rules.

Read the full summary

Appeal No. 104, Jan T., 1895, by defendant, from decrees of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 1696, granting a preliminary injunction, and subsequently refusing to dissolve it. Bill in equity to restrain proceedings before a magistrate. The bill was indorsed with the notice to appear within fourteen days formerly in use under the old rules, and not with the notice to appear and answer within fifteen days, as required by the amended equity rules. The court granted a preliminary injunction. Defendant subsequently made the following motion : “ And now, October 5, 1894, the defendant…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

The assignments of error relating to the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the Amended Equity Rules adopted January 15,1894, must be sustained. These rules were formulated and adopted to regulate the practice of equity in the several courts of common pleas in the commonwealth, and went into effect on the first Monday of March, 1894. They were established under the direction and by the authority of an act of the legislature, and have all the force and effect of a positive enactment. All proceedings in equity which are not in conformity with them are irregular…

2Cited by19 opinions

  1. Rader v. KeiperSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Yetter v. Delaware Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  3. Hinnershitz v. United Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  4. Surco Products, Inc. v. KieszekSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  5. Borough of Summerhill v. SherbineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

14 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