Tourison v. Engard
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 119, Oct. T., 1905, by defendant, from order of C. P.No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1904, No. 1,248, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Ashton S. Tourison v. Abram Engard. Assumpsit for the use and occupation of land. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. The court made absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The plaintiff’s amended statement alleges that on June 6, 1904, and ,for a long time prior thereto, defendant occupied certain described premises of which certain persons,' surviving executors, etc., were the legal owners; that on that date the premises were sold at sheriff’s sale to the plaintiff; that on June 20, of the same year, by deed duly acknowledged and recorded, the sheriff conveyed the same to the plaintiff, that *181the defendant continued to occupy the premises for three months from said date; and, although frequently requested by the plaintiff to pay $75.00 a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Chestnut Street National Bank v. EllisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Williams v. LadewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Brolasky v. FergusonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Grove v. BarclaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Bill Posting Sign Co. v. JermonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fortunato v. Shenango Limestone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- MacK v. FennellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Everly v. Shannopin Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Rosenblum v. StolzenbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Black v. IsaacmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.