Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Mancine v. Concord-Liberty Savings & Loan Ass'n

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 30, 1982No. 853Published

1ConcurrencePrice, Judge

Although I concur in the majority’s conclusion that Section 9 of the Act of 1705 was erroneously applied, I do so for reasons other than those found controlling by the majority. I would also hold that, while appellant did not err in bringing a cause of action in assumpsit, the cause of action cannot properly be predicated on a breach of contract theory-

Appellant’s mother, Rose Startari, owned certain real estate at 5000 Ladora Street until her death on October 13, 1966. On May 7, 1956, she executed a mortgage on the real estate to secure a loan of $3,600.00 from Hibernian Savings and Loan…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. PorterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  2. Federal Land Bank of Balto. v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  3. Lanning v. PawsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
  4. Wilson v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
  5. Gibson v. WinslowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861

4 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