Kaumagraph Co. v. Thissen Silk Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Kaumagraph Co. v. Thissen Silk Co., 42 Pa. Super. 110 (1910)
1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 299
Beaver, Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice

Kaumagraph Co. v. Thissen Silk Co.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the discharge of a rule to show cause why the transcript of appeal from a justice of the peace should not be permitted to be filed nunc pro tunc, the transcript not having been filed on or before the first day of the next term after the appeal was taken.

Upon the most liberal view that may be taken of the power of the court in such cases, the learned judge has shown quite clearly in the opinion filed by him, that the application was properly refused. We can add nothing profitable to what he has said.

The order is affirmed at the costs of the appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name
Kaumagraph Company v. Thissen Silk Company
Cited By
10 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Justice of the peace — Appeals—Nunc pro tunc — Negligence of counsel. The neglect of counsel in reading only part of a notice intended to guide attorneys as to the dates of terms, and the placing of a wrongful construction on such reading, will not entitle a defendant represented by the attorney, to an appeal nunc pro tunc from the judgment of a justice of the peace after the time for appeal has expired.