Pennsylvania Trust Co. v. Kline
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 120, Jan. T., 1899, by Martba J. Kline, defendant, from judgment of C. P. Blair Co., Jan. T., 1899, No. 80, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Scire facias sur mortgage.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 120, Jan. T., 1899, by Martba J. Kline, defendant, from judgment of C. P. Blair Co., Jan. T., 1899, No. 80, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Scire facias sur mortgage. Martba J. Kline, one of defendants, made an affidavit of defense as follows: The mortgage on which suit is brought was not executed by this defendant for any money loaned to or received by this affiant; nor was said mortgage executed and delivered by this affiant to secure payment of any debt lawfully contracted by the affiant; said mortgage was executed on the part of this affiant under duress and…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
For reasons given by the learned president of the common pleas, in his opinion sent np with the record, he was clearly right in entering judgment against the defendants for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. As to the alleged duress, the affidavit is manifestly defective in that it fails to specify any act or acts constituting duress. It is also defective in other respects, as shown by the court below. We find nothing in the case that requires discussion.
The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the court below.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Moyer v. DodsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Hastings Bank of Hastings v. CovitchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936