Garden City Nat. Bank v. Fitler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 155, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, C. II. Fitler, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1891, No. 519, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence, in assumpsit against drawee of bill of exchange.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 155, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, C. II. Fitler, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1891, No. 519, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence, in assumpsit against drawee of bill of exchange. Plaintiff’s amended statement was as follows: “ The plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant the sum of twelve hundred and fifty dollars with interest thereon from the ninth day of July, A. J). 1890. The said claim is due, and is founded upon a draft for said amount, of which…
1Opinion of the Court
Per. Curiam,
In its amended statement, the plaintiff bank claims to recover from defendant twelve hundred and fifty dollars, with interest, etc., due on defendant’s draft, a copy of which, with indorsements thereon, is fully set forth therein.
It is averred that said draft was drawn by defendant upon himself to the order of Daniel H. Bacon, accepted by the drawee and indorsed by the payee to the order of Thomas F. Morrison, cashier, who, being cashier of plaintiff bank, in*214dorsed the same to the Keystone National Bank or order, for collection for account of said plaintiff bank; that said…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gray's Administrator v. Bank of KentuckySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
3Cited by1 opinion
- Vermont Evaporator Co. v. TaftSupreme Court of Vermont · 1935