Greenspan v. Margolis
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 255, Oct. T., 19Í7, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1917, No. 5121, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Jacob Greenspan v. Hyman Margolis. Assumpsit to recover moneys paid out. Before Fin-letter, J. . The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The following are the material facts disclosed by the statement of claim and affidavit of defense. The plain*375tiff being the owner of a lot in the City of Philadelphia, on July 19,1894, borrowed $2,200 from the Philadelphia Savings Fund Society and executed a mortgage upon the property to secure the payment of said debt, in five years from the date thereof, which mortgage was duly recorded. On the 28d day of July, 1894, he conveyed said lot, and other property, to the defendant, subject to said mortgage. The defendant, on November 7, 1899, con-, veyed the lot to one Samuel…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- May's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Faulkner v. McHenrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Kirker v. WylieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Tritten's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
3Cited by9 opinions
- Heaney v. RiddleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Ellsworth Et Ux. v. HusbandSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Ryon's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Hale & Kilburn Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1937
- Nedwidek v. LarsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.