Galligan v. Heath
103 A. 878, 260 Pa. 457, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 547
Opinion
The learned court below could not have directed a verdict for the plaintiff, as requested by his first and second points. The question of fact for the jury, under the evidence, was as to the amount he was entitled to recover on his mortgage, and, as that has been established by the verdict, the judgment on it is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Galligan v. Heath, 103 A. 878, 260 Pa. 457, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 547 (Pa. 1918).
103 A. 878 (Galligan v. Heath) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In Re West Chestnut Realty of Haverford, Inc.
186 B.R. 612 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1995)
Philadelphia Acceptance Corp. v. Krapf
35 Pa. D. & C.3d 101 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1984)
First Federal S. & L. Ass'n v. Street Road Shopping Center, Inc.
68 Pa. D. & C.2d 751 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1975)
Foulke v. Hatfield Fair Grounds Bazaar, Inc.
173 A.2d 703 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1961)
McDowell Bk. of Sharon v. Rosenblum
200 A. 679 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Fudge v. Scholl
22 Pa. D. & C. 42 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1934)
Harper v. Consolidated Rubber Co.
131 A. 356 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)