Legal Opinion

Marshall v. Sarafin

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Decided June 26, 1942No. File No. 73Published

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum of decision in action to foreclose mortgages.

BORDON, J.

The defendant claims that she should prevail because:

1. The presumption of payment of the notes, which matured in 1916,'runs in her favor.

*3292. That the notes have actually been paid through con' veyance of two lots owned by the life tenant.

3. That the mortgages have been extinguished by conveyance of the mortgaged property by the life tenant to the mortgagee.

4. That failure to make payment fcf principal or interest by the defendant, or her predecessor in title, since maturity of the notes bars enforcement under the statute of…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Belknap v. GleasonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
  2. Scott v. ScottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
  3. Beach v. IsacsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  4. Markham v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
  5. Simpson v. HallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879

16 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