Signal Consumer Discount Co. v. Babuscio
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
This case presents an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania: do the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure permit a defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action to join an additional defendant whose purported liability to either the mortgagee or the original defendant is based upon an assumpsit claim? The lower court answered this question in the negative, sustained appellee’s preliminary objections, and dismissed appellants’ third party complaint. We affirm.
On March 31, 1977, Signal Consumer Discount Co. (hereinafter Signal) filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure against…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- MECO REALTY CO. v. BurnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Martinelli v. MulloySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Free v. LebowitzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Kretschman v. StollSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- First Seneca Bank v. Greenville Distributing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Mellon Bank, N.A. v. JosephSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Rearick v. Elderton State BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Warden v. ZanellaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Bank of Pennsylvania v. G/N Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.