Nesbit v. Godfrey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 42, Oct. T., 1892, by defendants, Godfrey & Clark, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1891, No. 45, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in favor of plaintiff, Eliza J. Nesbit. Assumpsit on oil lease.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 42, Oct. T., 1892, by defendants, Godfrey & Clark, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1891, No. 45, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in favor of plaintiff, Eliza J. Nesbit. Assumpsit on oil lease. The lease was executed and delivered on June 12, 1890, the material portions of which were as follows: “ The said party of the first part, in consideration of seventy-five dollars per year in advance and the stipulations, rents and covenants hereinafter contained, on the part of the said parties of the second part to be paid,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We affirm this judgment upon the opinion of the learned judge of the court below.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by12 opinions
- Loughney v. QuigleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Cairns v. LlewellynSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Prager's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance of California v. AlsopIndiana Supreme Court · 1922
- Double v. Union Heat & Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.