Atkinson v. Walton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 119, Jan. T., 1894, by Henry T. Atkinson, assignee of Thomas Finley, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1893, No. 682, discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence on sci. fa. sur mortgage against Frank R. Walton and wife. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence on sci. fa', sur mortgage. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was discharge of rule.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
On the 10th of August, 1892, Frank R. Walton and Sophia his wife, executed and delivered to Thomas Finley a mortgage on a lot on Cayuga street in the 28th ward of Philadelphia. The mortgage was conditioned for the payment to Finley of a real debt of $1,400, at the expiration of five years from the date thereof, with interest at six per cent, pajmble half yearly. In the mortgage was this stipulation: “ And it is hereby expressly agreed that if at any time default shall be made in payment of interest as aforesaid, for the space of thirty days after any half-yearly…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Huling v. DrexellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
3Cited by12 opinions
- O'Maley v. PuglieseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Dougherty, Tr. v. Thomas, Exr.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Cole v. Philadelphia CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Corona Coal & Coke Co. v. DickinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Steinman v. Lacharty Hotels Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.