O'Rorke v. Geary
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 90, Oct. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny County, Nov. T., 1902, No. 411, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of D. P. O’Rorke v. D. J. Geary. Assumpsit to recover the amount alleged to be due on a contract for building a bridge. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 90, Oct. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny County, Nov. T., 1902, No. 411, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of D. P. O’Rorke v. D. J. Geary. Assumpsit to recover the amount alleged to be due on a contract for building a bridge. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. McCltjno, J., filed the following opinion : This suit is upon a written agreement, and the main defense is that the defendant did not, in executing the contract, act for himself, but for a corporation to be…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
On a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense the court below entered judgment for plaintiff (see opinion filed) for the larger part of his claim. That opinion sufficiently vindicates the judgment.
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment affirmed for the reasons given in the opinion of the court below.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Columbia Metal Culvert Co. v. Kaiser Industries Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- In Re RothmanUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- RKO-Stanley Warner Theatres, Inc. v. GrazianoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- In Re Collins Hosiery Mills, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1937
- Gifford v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.