G.A.G. Corp. v. Auritt
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Spaeth, J.:
I agree with Judge Jacobs that this court has jurisdiction. I also agree with his interpretation of the subordination agreements. I cannot, however, agree that appellee should be permitted to take advantage of the statute that would discharge the subordinated mortgage. To permit this, by allowing the decision of the court below to stand, is to permit appellee to obtain for $2,400 a property purchased seven years earlier for $22,500. Since appellee will have achieved this coup as a result of the position he maintained before the Commonwealth…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fedas v. Insurance Co. of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Tax Claim Bureau v. WheatcroftCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Commonwealth v. MoltzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
- Sargent v. JohnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Ebert v. JohnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.