Legal Opinion

Moye v. Morrison

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 25, 1922No. Appeal, 181PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

The plaintiff in this action of assumpsit seeks to recover of the defendant, under the provisions of the Act of February 24, 1721, 2 Sm. Laws 124, for the use of a portion of a party wall, erected between their adjoining properties. The pleadings, which were offered in evidence, established that the wall in question was a party wall, and the only question at issue was whether the defendant had used a portipn of the wall in the erection of a new structure upon her property. The opinion of Judge Audenried, of the court below, which appears in the report of this case, fully…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Co. v. Odd FellowsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  2. O'Malley v. De LaPuenteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gimbel Bros. v. Markette Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961
  2. Gimbel Bros., Inc. v. Markette Corporation and Don TesauroCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
  3. Cronin v. DoughertySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. Patterson v. DiBelle, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1952

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

Powered by the Exa API