Legal Opinion

Cicchini v. Maioriello

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Decided May 18, 1939No. 4711Published

1Opinion of the Court

Sloane, J.,

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, seek, by this bill in equity, to cancel a bond and mort*345gage, secured against premises owned by the husband. They allege that, because they could not read or write English, they did not know what they signed or executed,. and were imposed upon by defendant’s husband, since, they allege, they owe nothing to defendant or her husband, and therefore had no reason to execute the bond and its accompanying mortgage.

Defendant answered and said that the bond and its associated instrument, the mortgage, were given by plaintiffs to defendant, as nominee of her…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Meek v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Cook v. DonnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1937
  3. Claflin v. United States Credit System Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
  4. Federal Land Bank v. KoslofskyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Anderson v. Horst Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

11 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