Booth v. Wolff Process Leather Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 15, Jan. T., 1909, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1908, No. 3,842, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Alfred Booth et al., trading as A. Booth & Company, v. Wolff Process Leather Company, Mortgagor, and Benjamin H. Ludlow, Trustee, Real Owner. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense on a scire facias sur mortgage.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 15, Jan. T., 1909, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1908, No. 3,842, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Alfred Booth et al., trading as A. Booth & Company, v. Wolff Process Leather Company, Mortgagor, and Benjamin H. Ludlow, Trustee, Real Owner. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense on a scire facias sur mortgage. The facts are stated in' the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit' of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
This appeal is from an order making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in an action on a mortgage. The mortgage was payable in four yearly installments and it contained a provision that, in the event of default in payment of an installment or of interest or of taxes on the property mortgaged, the whole of the principal debt should become due. This provision was set out in the scire facias and it was alleged in the writ that default had been made in the payment of an installment of the principal and in the pay*585ment of taxes…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Williams v. GraverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Haverford Township School District v. HerzogSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Harrison Bros. & Co. v. Hartley, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1936