Legal Opinion

Himeles v. Rose

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 16, 1924No. Appeal, 87PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The court refused to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense; hence this appeal. The action is assumpsit for damages resulting from the alleged refusal of the defendant to perform that part of an agreement in writing for the sale of a certain parcel of real estate in Philadelphia, by the defendant to the plaintiff, wherein the former agreed to procure a mortgage on the premises for the plaintiff without cost to him, for the sum of $8,000, payable in three years. This the defendant did not do, because of which default the plaintiff was subjected to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Flegal v. HooverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Dreifus v. Columbian Exposition Salvage Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
  3. Robert Grace Contracting Co. v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  4. Holloway v. FrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
  5. Germantown Dairy Co. v. McCallumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Kirk v. Brentwood Manor Homes, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  2. Cheponis' EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. DeLong Hook & Eye Co. v. Vogue Silk Hosiery Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. Gallagher v. WoodSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. Graboyes v. KapnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934

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