Muir v. Hankele
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 15, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Bucks Co., Sept. T., 1920, No. 15, for defendants on affidavit of defense in nature of demurrer, in case of Alfred H. Muir v. Allen J. Hankele and Wynne James. Trespass for malicious prosecution. Before Ryan, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was, inter alia, judgment, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
In this case the two defendants, by affidavit of defense, in effect demurred to the statement of plaintiff, in which the latter claimed damages against the former for malicious prosecution, alleging, inter alia, that defendants were client and attorney in the prior action, and charging them in the present suit as joint tort-feasors; judgment was entered for defendants, and plaintiff has appealed.
*233We adopt, as correctly disposing of the case, the following excerpts from the opinion of the court below: “The tort with which they [defendants] are charged is an alleged malicious…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- McCarthy v. De ArmitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Wiest v. Electric Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- McClafferty v. PhilpSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Dutton v. Lansdowne BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Emerson v. CochranSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Farneth v. Commercial Credit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Lapp v. TitusSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Biggans v. Hajoca Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1950