Ferguson v. BOLE
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Dithrich, J.,
In this action to quiet title to certain real estate situate in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, appellants appeal from an order of the court below directing them to pay the costs. They contend that they were “inter-veners” in the action and, as such, could be assessed only with the costs which accrued after their intervention. That is the sole question for argument under Rule 22. The question turns on whether they were “inter-veners” or “intermeddlers”, as found by the learned president judge of the court below.
The facts, which are not in controversy, briefly stated are as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Manning v. ShoopSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
3Cited by3 opinions
- Whitener v. TurnbeauMissouri Court of Appeals · 1980
- Eskew v. National Farmers Union InsuranceNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000
- Swiftships Freeport, Inc. v. M v. Cayman EndeavorDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1988