Legal Opinion

Shay v. Schrink

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 11, 1939No. Appeal, 126PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Steen*

The record in this case indicates no substantial dispute of facts; the governing principles of law are clear and there is no difficulty in their application.

Plaintiff was the owner of a mortgage executed by defendant Jennie Schrink and assigned to plaintiff by the original mortgagee in 1928. From then until and including January 14, 1933, the semi-annual interest payments thereon were made by the mortgagor by checks which were delivered to plaintiff’s husband, Arthur L. Shay, and receipted for by him, but made out to her order and, in every instance, endorsed by…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Mielcuszny Et Ux. v. Rosol (Et Ux.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Williams v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Browne v. HoekstraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  4. Thees v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Lewis v. MatiasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Schweitzer v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Del Borrello v. LaulettaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Gillian v. Consolidated Foods Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  4. Commonwealth v. TurnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  5. Commonwealth v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950

5 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