Legal Opinion

Howell Et Ux. v. Wheelock

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1934No. Appeal 226PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Baldbige, J.,

In this action of assumpsit the court below made absolute the plaintiffs’ rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

The plaintiffs leased certain premises to the defendant, the appellant herein, for a term of five years from October 1,1928, at a monthly rental of $150. The lease provided that “Either party may terminate the lease at the expiration of the term hereby created, by giving to the other ninety days’ written notice of intention so to do, but in default of such notice, this lease, with all the conditions and covenants thereof, shall…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gianni v. Russell Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Speier v. MichelsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Cridge's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Allinger v. MelvinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Ward v. ZeiglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. In Re Pch Associates, F/k/a Simon Associates, Debtor. Liona Corporation, N v. V. Pch AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
  2. International Milling Co. v. Hachmeister, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  3. Boyd EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  4. Rekas v. DopkavichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  5. PCH Associates v. Liona Corp. N v. (In Re PCH Associates)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1985

8 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