Chestnut Street National Bank v. Ellis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 347, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, Amos Ellis, from order of O. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1893, No. 105, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit by indorsee against indorser.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 347, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, Amos Ellis, from order of O. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1893, No. 105, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit by indorsee against indorser. Plaintiff’s statement was as follows: “The above action is brought to recover the sum of two thousand and five hundred dollars, being the amount of a certain promissory note dated May 1, 1893, and payable ninety days after date, made by one W. W. De Seville to the order of himself and by the said W. W. De Saville and the defendant indorsed, together with…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,
To entitle a plaintiff to judgment for want of an affidavit of defence, or for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, the statement of his demand under the act of May 25, 1887, must be self-sustaining; that is to say, it must set forth in clear and concise terms a good cause of action, by which is meant such averments of fact as, if not controverted, would entitle him to a verdict for the amount of his claim. In that respect, there is no substantial difference between a special count in a declaration, under the time-honored system of pleading, and its…
2Cited by33 opinions
- Parry v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Downes v. HODINSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Peale v. AddicksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Acme Manufacturing Co. v. ReedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- O'Donnell v. NeelySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.