Bristol Iron & Steel Co. v. Selliez
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 1, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1895, No. 106, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The record showed that the suit was brought on a promissory note for $1,000 given for a subscription to the stock of the Bristol Iron & Steel Company.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 1, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1895, No. 106, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The record showed that the suit was brought on a promissory note for $1,000 given for a subscription to the stock of the Bristol Iron & Steel Company. The affidavit of defense was as follows : Deponent says that he was not, at the time of making said promissory note, and is not now indebted to the plaintiff in any sum whatever, by virtue of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The learned court was "clearly right in entering judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. There is nothing in either of the assignments of error: that requires discussion. ,
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Acetylene Light, Heat & Power Co. v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Acetylene Light, Heat & Power Co. v. BeckSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898