Walnut-Juniper Co. v. McKee, B. M

11 Citing cases

  1. In re Jewelcor Inc.

    190 B.R. 532 (M.D. Pa. 1995)

    Id. See also Walnut Juniper Co. v. McKee, 236 Pa.Super. 1, 344 A.2d 549 (1975) ("An eviction is any unlawful act of a landlord which deprives a tenant of the beneficial enjoyment of the demised premises and which manifests an intent to hold adversely to the tenant." Id. at 5, 344 A.2d 549.

  2. In re Verdi

    244 B.R. 314 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000)   Cited 4 times

    The Debtor contended that this ambiguity must be construed against Walheim citing Shehadi v. NortheasternNat'l Bank of PA., 474 Pa. 232, 236, 378 A.2d 304, 306 (1977); and Gallagher v. Fidelcor, Inc., 441 Pa. Super. 223, 229, 657 A.2d 31, 34 (1995). Finally, the Debtor contended that the failure of O'Reilly or Walheim to enforce the covenants estopped them from doing so by acquiescence in the Debtor's conduct, citing Walnut-Juniper Co. v. McKee, Berger Mansueto, Inc., 236 Pa. Super. 1, 344 A.2d 549 (1975). Walheim, on the other hand, countered that the Debtor's argument that the Employment Agreement is invalid and unenforceable was irrelevant in light of the evidence at hand.

  3. Regscan v. Con-Way Transp. Services

    2005 Pa. Super. 176 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005)   Cited 20 times

    This statement is merely a conclusion of law, for which no response by Con-Way was required. See Walnut-Juniper Co. v. McKee, Berger Mansueto, Inc., 344 A.2d 549, 552 (Pa.Super. 1975) (no response required for conclusion of law). Moreover, the phrase "no meeting of the minds" does not automatically connote mutual or unilateral mistake, especially where the complaint lacks facts that indicate the nature of the mistake.

  4. Kuriger v. Cramer

    345 Pa. Super. 595 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985)   Cited 38 times

    Rather, the court may find that a "constructive eviction" has occurred where a landlord "deprives a tenant of the beneficial enjoyment of the demised premises and which manifests an intention to hold adversely to the tenant." Walnut-Juniper Co. v. McKee,Berger Mansueto, Inc., 236 Pa. Super. 1, 5, 344 A.2d 549, 551 (1975). See also Adler v. Sklaroff, 154 Pa. Super. 444, 447, 36 A.2d 231, 233 (1943); Stern, 1 Trickett on the Law of Landlordand Tenant in Pennsylvania (3rd ed. rev. 1973) § 292, 293; 49 Am.Jur.2d supra at § 300. Where, as here, a landlord withholds heat, in breach of a lease covenant, our courts have found a constructive eviction that gives rise to an action for damages by the tenant.

  5. Chervenak, Keane v. Hotel Rittenhouse

    328 Pa. Super. 357 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)   Cited 19 times

    Hence the court below was not obliged to accept it as true unless overcome by sufficient evidence submitted in the form of depositions or otherwise."). See also Walnut-Juniper Co. v.McKee, Berger and Mansueto, Inc., 236 Pa. Super. 1, 344 A.2d 549 (1975), citing Smith v. Dale, 405 Pa. 293, 296, 175 A.2d 78, 80 (1961) (If moving party fails to exercise right to take depositions, then "the averments of the answer so far asthey are responsive to those of the petition, would have to be taken as true.") (emphasis added). Accordingly, we find no merit in appellant's first contention.

  6. Leasing Service Corp. v. Benson

    317 Pa. Super. 439 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    Finding "a judgment by confession may properly be maintained when the instrument authorizes it, by the filing of a complaint, even if a computation of the amount may require reference to matters outside the record"

    It is well-settled that a confessed judgment may be opened only where the petitioner acts promptly and presents evidence of a meritorious defense. Kardos v. Morris, 470 Pa. 337, 368 A.2d 657 (1977); Walnut-Juniper Co. v. McKee, Berger Mansueto, 236 Pa. Super. 1, 344 A.2d 549 (1975). Pa.R.C.P. 2959(e) provides, in part, that: "If evidence is produced which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to the jury the court shall open the judgment."

  7. Young v. Pileggi

    455 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)   Cited 10 times

    In order for such a petition to prevail, the judgment debtor must act promptly and produce evidence in support of a meritorious defense. Wenger v. Ziegler, 424 Pa. 268, 226 A.2d 653 (1967); Walnut-Juniper Co. v. McKee, Berger Mansueto, Inc. 236 Pa. Super. 1, 344 A.2d 549 (1975); Joseph A. Puleo Sons, Inc. v. Rossi, 234 Pa. Super. 612, 340 A.2d 557 (1975); Ritchey v. Mars, 227 Pa. Super. 33, 324 A.2d 513 (1974)."

  8. Corson v. Corson's, Inc.

    290 Pa. Super. 528 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that because there was neither assent nor consideration supporting a proposed modification to a contract, "there was no modification"

    McEvilly v. Tucci, 239 Pa. Super. 474, 481, 362 A.2d 259, 263 (1976). If this right is not exercised, then the issue is ripe for argument and decision upon the pleadings alone.Walnut-Juniper Company v. McKee,Berger Mansueto, Ind., 236 Pa. Super. 1, 7, 344 A.2d 549, 552 (1975). (Emphasis added.)

  9. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. v. Lehr

    438 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)   Cited 13 times

    It is axiomatic that one who petitions to open a confessed judgment must act promptly and aver a meritorious defense. Wenger v. Ziegler, 424 Pa. 268, 226 A.2d 653 (1967); Walnut-Juniper Co. v. McKee,Berger Mansueto, Inc., 236 Pa. Super. 1, 344 A.2d 549 (1975); CheltenhamNat. Bank v. Snelling, 230 Pa. Super. 498, 326 A.2d 557 (1974); Ritchey v. Mars, 227 Pa. Super. 33, 324 A.2d 518 (1974). And it is equally true that such a petition is an appeal to the court's equitable powers, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and a reviewing court will reverse the determination of the lower court only for a clear and manifest abuse of discretion. Triangle BuildingSupplies and Lumber Co. v. Zerman, 242 Pa. Super. 315, 363 A.2d 1287 (Jacobs, J., filed 9/27/76), CheltenhamNat. Bank v. Snelling, supra; Bucks County Bank Trust Co. v. DeGroot, 226 Pa. Super. 419, 313 A.2d 357 (1973).

  10. Tenreed Corp. v. Phila. Folding Box Co.

    389 A.2d 594 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1978)   Cited 10 times

    In order for such a petition to prevail, the judgment debtor must act promptly and produce evidence in support of a meritorious defense. Wenger v. Ziegler, 424 Pa. 268, 226 A.2d 653 (1967); Walnut-Juniper Co. v. McKee, Berger Mansueto, Inc., 236 Pa. Super. 1, 344 A.2d 549 (1975); Joseph A.Puleo Sons, Inc. v. Rossi, 234 Pa. Super. 612, 340 A.2d 557 (1975); Ritchey v. Mars, 227 Pa. Super. 33, 324 A.2d 513 (1974). There is no contention that appellant failed to act promptly in filing its petition; we acknowledged as much in Tenreed I. It is only necessary, therefore, for us to determine whether appellant advanced sufficient evidence of a meritorious defense to the confessed judgment.