Elkin's Petition
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Kephart,
James and Lucy Crivello leased the property in controversy to McCartney & Johnson. Based on an averment of a default, the lessees, by writ duly issued, were dispossessed, and a new lease was made to appellee. By its terms she was required to pay the expenses incurred in the above possessory proceedings and in addition “to maintain at her own expense title to the premises against McCartney & Johnson in any proceeding which may now be pending or which may hereafter be instituted by them......for the recovery of possession, it being understood that in the event of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fine v. SoiferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Woodward v. CarsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
- Rheem v. Naugatuck Wheel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Watkins v. NeffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Geiselman v. ShomoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
3Cited by8 opinions
- Linnen v. ArmainisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Bailey, Jo Ellen v. Ness, J. Christian, Individually Garber, Daniel, Individually and Northern Regional Police DeptCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. PucciDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Coover v. Saucon Valley School DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
- Schwartz v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (In Re Kridlow)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.