Legal Opinion

Ferguson v. BOLE

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1951No. Appeals, 101 and 102PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Manning v. ShoopSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Whitener v. TurnbeauMissouri Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Eskew v. National Farmers Union InsuranceNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. Swiftships Freeport, Inc. v. M v. Cayman EndeavorDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API