Germantown T. Co. v. Emhardt (No. 2)
This text of 184 A. 460 (Germantown T. Co. v. Emhardt (No. 2)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion by
The principles governing this case are stated in our opinion in Germantown Trust Co., Guardian, v. Emhardt, 321 Pa. 561. The facts of the two cases are almost identical, the only differences being that in this case the plaintiff appears as guardian of the estate of Mary Elizabeth Mareolina, and that the bond and mortgage, which *568 is for a like sum, is secured upon premises 82 West Sharpnaek Street, Philadelphia. The pleadings, except for these factual differences, are identical. However, in this case plaintiff’s rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense was sustained, and judgment entered accordingly. For the reasons given in our opinion at 321 Pa. 561, the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
184 A. 460, 321 Pa. 567, 1936 Pa. LEXIS 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/germantown-t-co-v-emhardt-no-2-pa-1936.