Dreifus v. Logan Iron & Steel Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 394,. Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1913, No. 2559, for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in the case of Emanuel Dreifus, Henry P. Reese and Stanton L. Dreifus, trading as Emanuel Dreifus & Company, to the use of W. Vernon Phillips and Hubert E. Rogers, Trustees, v. Logan Iron &. Steel Company, a corporation. Assumpsit. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 394,. Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1913, No. 2559, for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in the case of Emanuel Dreifus, Henry P. Reese and Stanton L. Dreifus, trading as Emanuel Dreifus & Company, to the use of W. Vernon Phillips and Hubert E. Rogers, Trustees, v. Logan Iron &. Steel Company, a corporation. Assumpsit. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The plaintiffs, who are the trustees in bankruptcy of Emanuel Dreifus, sued to recover a balance alleged to be due to…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
■ The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the learned president judge of the Common Pleas.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hess v. Merion Title & Trust Co. of ArdmoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Crew Levick Co. v. GibbonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Stephens-Adamson Manufacturing Co. v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Scholtz v. Crescent Loan & Savings Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- United Shoe Machinery Co. v. WinstonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914