United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Winston
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 262, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1913, No. 2,273,' making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of United Shoe Machinery Company v. Morton Winston. Assumpsit on a check.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 262, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1913, No. 2,273,' making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of United Shoe Machinery Company v. Morton Winston. Assumpsit on a check. The check was as follows: “No. 6 Philadelphia, Aug. 27, 1913. “National Bank op Germantown 3-53 “Pay to......John A. Jackson..........or order One Hundred & Fifty......................Dollars $150.00. “ (Sgd.) Morton Winston. “Indorsed: “John A. Jackson “Pay to Central Trust & Saving Co. “or order “United Shoe Machinery…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The copy of the plaintiff’s statement that was served on defendant contained a notice to the latter “to file a plea and an affidavit of defense within fifteen days” or judgment, etc. Within the time and at the same time both plea and affidavit were filed. A rule was then entered for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit. The rule was made absolute and this appeal followed.
In Dreifus v. Logan Steel Co., 245 Pa. 196, President Judge Willson pointed out the scope and effect of Rule 42, of the revised rules of the common pleas courts of *529Philadelphia county, and held that,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Second National Bank v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Dreifus v. Logan Iron & Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Stephens-Adamson Manufacturing Co. v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914