Raeder v. Monks

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Raeder v. Monks

77 A. 443, 228 Pa. 269, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 470

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 16, 1910

DocketAppeals, Nos. 257 and 258

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A. 443 (Raeder v. Monks) 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.

Bluebook

Raeder v. Monks, 77 A. 443, 228 Pa. 269, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 470 (Pa. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

These appeals are from an order discharging a rule to open a judgment for rent entered upon a written lease. Four persons were named in the body of the lease as lessees but only three of them signed it. All four, however, entered into possession of the premises, paid rent, sublet the property and jointly took all the benefits of the lease. The ground of the application by the defendants to open the judgment was that they had signed the lease upon the assurance by the lessor that the fourth person named as lessee would also sign it. The court found that the contention of the defendants was not sustained by the testimony. Such a finding as this will not be set aside unless it is shown that it is clearly erroneous. This has. not been done.

The order of the court is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

These appeals are from an order discharging a rule to open a judgment for rent entered upon a written lease. Four persons were named in the body of the lease as lessees but only three of them signed it. All four, however, entered into possession of the premises, paid rent, sublet the property and jointly took all the benefits of the lease. The ground of the application by the defendants to open the judgment was that they had signed the lease upon the assurance by the lessor that the fourth person named as lessee would also sign it. The court found that the contention of the defendants was not sustained by the testimony. Such a finding as this will not be set aside unless it is shown that it is clearly erroneous. This has. not been done.

The order of the court is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A. 443, 228 Pa. 269, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raeder-v-monks-pa-1910.