- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
WINDISCH v. F. CAMDEN NAT. BK. T. 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.
Alert