Legal Opinion

Fisher for Use v. McFarland

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 9, 1933No. Appeal 132PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

We are asked in this case to decide whether a mortgagee, under a mortgage which contains no clause conveying the “rents, issues and profits” of the mortgaged premises, may, on default in the payment of interest by the mortgagor, by a notice to and demand upon the tenant, in possession under a lease executed after the mortgage, that future instalments of rent be paid to him, require the tenant to make payment to the mortgagee of rents accruing after such notice and demand.

The question is' an interesting one, and is related to the decisions in Bulger v. Wilderman & Pleet,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bulger v. Wilderman and PleetSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  2. Randal v. Jersey Mortgage Investment Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Austin-Nichols & Co. v. Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Home v. StartzellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  5. Morris v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Folmar v. ShafferSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Miners Savings Bank v. ThomasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Mignatti v. General Mortgage Financing Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Citizens Trust Co. v. Trunk, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clarion County1937
  5. Roehm v. Stetson, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1943

1 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