Thompson v. Prettyman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 335, Jan. T., 1910, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June Term, 1906, No. 2,560, dismissing exceptions to referee’s report in case of Frank B. Thompson and William H. White, copartners trading as Thompson & White, v. Charles B. Prettymán. Exceptions to report of Horace M. Rumsey, Esq., referee. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Errors assigned were in dismissing exceptions to report of referee.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
We have carefully examined this record and have discovered no reversible error. The exhaustive report of the learned referee covers every question of fact and law in the case. He has discussed the evidence and found the facts most fully. About all the authorities in this state bearing on the questions of law have been analyzed and applied to the facts. The case was heard by the court on exceptions, and the referee was sustained in an opinion which deals with the law applicable to the controlling questions raised on the record. Under the circumstances, we deem…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Earnest v. HoskinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Osterheldt v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Campbell v. SloanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Alexander v. HamiltonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Ellison v. HosieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
3Cited by8 opinions
- Moll v. LaffertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Hardin v. Grenada BankMississippi Supreme Court · 1938
- Shoenfelt v. Donna Belle Loan & Inv. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Robinson v. FultonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Standard Credit Co. v. LauderbaughSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.