Legal Opinion
Windisch v. First Camden Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided January 7, 1932No. Appeal, 369PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We are of opinion that this is not a ease “clear and free from doubt,” this being so, the order discharging the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is affirmed: Colonial Securities Co. v. Levy et al. (No. 2), 302 Pa. 329, 331; Sharples v. Northampton Trans. Co., 303 Pa. 211, 212; Chelten Avenue Building Corp. v. Mayer, 306 Pa. 225; Penna. Co. for Insurances, etc., v. Bergson, 307 Pa. 44.
The order of the court below is affirmed.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pennsylvania Co. v. BergsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Colonial SEC. Co. v. Levy (No. 2)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Chelten Avenue Building Corp. v. MayerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Sharples v. Northampton Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rodgers v. MannSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Atterbury v. McGlinn, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1935
- Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance v. Roth, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1935
- McConnell v. Merchants & Businessmen's Mutual Fire Insurance, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County1944