Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

Windisch, Appellant, v. First Camden Nat. Bank Trust Co.

Appeals — Judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense — Discharge of rule — Suit for taxes paid by mortgagee.

1. An order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will not be reversed except in a case clear and free from doubt.

Argued January 7, 1932.

PER CURIAM, February 3, 1932:

We are of opinion that this is not a case "clear and free from doubt," this being so, the order discharging the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is affirmed: Colonial Securities Co. v. Levy et al. (No. 2), 302 Pa. 329, 331; Sharples v. Northampton Trans. Co., 303 Pa. 211, 212; Chelten Avenue Building Corp. v. Mayer, 306 Pa. 225; Penna. Co. for Insurances, etc., v. Bergson, 307 Pa. 44.

The order of the court below is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WINDISCH v. F. CAMDEN NAT. BK. T. CO
(Feb 3, 1932)