Windisch v. First Camden Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
161 A. 410, 306 Pa. 194, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 420
Opinion
We are of opinion that this is not a ease “clear and free from doubt,” this being so, the order discharging the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is affirmed: Colonial Securities Co. v. Levy et al. (No. 2), 302 Pa. 329, 331; Sharples v. Northampton Trans. Co., 303 Pa. 211, 212; Chelten Avenue Building Corp. v. Mayer, 306 Pa. 225; Penna. Co. for Insurances, etc., v. Bergson, 307 Pa. 44.
The order of the court below is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Windisch v. First Camden Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 161 A. 410, 306 Pa. 194, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 420 (Pa. 1932).
161 A. 410 (Windisch v. First Camden Nat. Bank & Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McConnell v. Merchants & Businessmen's Mutual Fire Insurance
52 Pa. D. & C. 1 (Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, 1944)
Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance v. Roth
24 Pa. D. & C. 286 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1935)
Atterbury v. McGlinn
24 Pa. D. & C. 460 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1935)
Rodgers v. Mann
161 A. 573 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)