Philadelphia v. Stewart
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 295, Jan. T., 1900, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1900, No. 935, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Philadelphia to use of Edwin B. Malone, who survived Bernard T. Malone and Edwin B. Malone, late copartners, trading under the name of Watson, Malone & Sons, v. George W. Stewart and the Equitable Trust Company. Assumpsit on a bond.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 295, Jan. T., 1900, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1900, No. 935, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Philadelphia to use of Edwin B. Malone, who survived Bernard T. Malone and Edwin B. Malone, late copartners, trading under the name of Watson, Malone & Sons, v. George W. Stewart and the Equitable Trust Company. Assumpsit on a bond. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts appear by the opinion of Pennypacker, P. J., which was as follows : On May 16, 1898,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
In a clear and concise opinion Judge Penn ypacker stated the grounds on which the judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense was entered. Upon due consideration we affirm the judgment on that opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Philadelphia v. StewartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Erie v. DiefendorfSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Bowditch v. GourleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- N. O. Nelson Co. v. StephensonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- United States v. RundleWashington Supreme Court · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.