Legal Opinion

Brobst v. Brobst

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 13, 1956No. Appeal, 307PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Aenold,

Defendant appeals from the decree of the court below, in equity, dismissing his petition to open a decree pro confesso and also making final a decree nisi entered after hearing. His sole contention is that the court had no jurisdiction to try title to realty.

Plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife and are separated. The wife’s complaint alleged that she and defendant “are the owners as tenants by the entireties” of designated realty in defendant’s sole possession, and that the deeds “have never been recorded and are ... in the possession of the Defendant.”…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Maxwell v. SchaeferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  2. Mower v. MowerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Lindenfelser v. LindenfelserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  4. DeBernard v. DeBernardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  5. New York Life Insurance v. SekulaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Hack v. HackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Lindenfelser v. LindenfelserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Reifschneider v. ReifschneiderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  4. Ray v. RayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1960
  5. Linett v. LinettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API