Legal Opinion

Friedline v. Somerset Borough

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 12, 1934No. Appeal 274PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Optntobt by

Stadtfeld, J.,

This is an appeal by plaintiff from the order of the court in directing judgment to be entered in favor of defendant, in an action of assumpsit, in default of an amended statement within .fifteen days, after sustaining an affidavit of defense in the nature of a statutory demurrer.

The statement of claim in substance alleges that plaintiff was a merchant engaged in the- jewelry business in the Borough of Somerset; that the defendant’s chief of police, acting under the authority and direction of W. H. Beachy, the burgess of said borough, acting under the direction of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Peebles v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
  2. Investor's Realty Co. v. HarrisburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Lowenstein v. BacheSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Tugboat Indian Co. v. A/S Ivarans RederiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Phipps v. KirkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Dobson Park Mgmt., LLC v. Property Mgmt., Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. Cunningham (To Use) v. AsherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  5. Naumberg v. Home Unity Savings & Loan Ass'n, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1961

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

Powered by the Exa API