Legal Opinion

Arzinger v. Baughman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 27, 1943No. Appeal, 120PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Drew,

In this action of replevin, the learned court below, on motion of plaintiffs, entered an order vacating its previous order wherein Coke Reclamation Corporation was granted leave to intervene as a party defendant, striking off that corporation’s counter bond, and directing the sheriff to deliver possession of the equipment replevied to plaintiffs. From that order Coke Reclamation Corporation has appealed.

Plaintiffs, W. O. Arzinger'and Catherine C. Arzinger, doing business as W. O. Arzinger Machinery Company, a partnership, instituted this action on February 27, 1943,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McFadden v. Pennzoil CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Miners Savings Bank v. NaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Northampton Trust Co. v. Northampton Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  4. Real Estate Land Title & Trust Co. v. West Chester Street Ry.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Schaffer v. LarzelereSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Standard Pipeline Coating Co. v. Solomon & Teslovich, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Wilson v. Howard Johns RestaurantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  4. Esso Standard Oil Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  5. Puleo v. Broad Street HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API