Legal Opinion

Bryn Mawr Tr. Co. v. Cole (Haydock Et Ux.)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 18, 1932No. Appeal, 2Published

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Intervening defendants, Haydock and wife, petitioned for a rule to show cause why judgment for defendant should not be marked to their use, and further, that releases, made by plaintiff, of real estate from the lien of the judgment be stricken off.

The facts as set forth in the opinion of the court below are substantially as follows: On October 11, 1926, the Bryn Mawr Trust Company entered the judgment in question against Clarence E. Cole, Wm. A. Young and Thomas O. Haydock, Jr., in the amount of $1,000. This judgment was given as collateral security for a collateral note of the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Baily v. BrownfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API