Philadelphia v. Nell
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 184, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1875, No. 5, M. L. D., on verdict for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Philadelphia v. Frank C. Nell. Issue to determine the validity of a judgment of revival. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. The court entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The city, on December 6, 1875, filed a lien for water pipe against a lot at the corner of Hart lane and Front street road, and against “ Frank C. Nell, owner, or reputed owner, or whoever may be owner.” This lien was regularly revived by successive sci. fas., the last judgment having been entered on September 16,1897. Samuel Rowen having, on April 9,1902, presented his petition setting forth that he was the registered owner of the land, obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened and he permitted to defend, which rule was subsequently made…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Philadelphia v. Unknown OwnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Simons v. KernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Philadelphia City v. DunganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Philadelphia v. KatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Gans v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Spramelli v. Boro. of PunxsutawneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Philadelphia v. WallaceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904