El Dorado Jewelry Co. v. Hopkins
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 88, April T., 1907, by defendants, from order of C. P. Jefferson Co., Aug. T., 1905, No. 313, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of El Dorado Jewelry Co. v. Jacoby Hopkins. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 88, April T., 1907, by defendants, from order of C. P. Jefferson Co., Aug. T., 1905, No. 313, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of El Dorado Jewelry Co. v. Jacoby Hopkins. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The affidavit of defense was as follows : 1. On August 13, 1904, the plaintiff company by its agent, F. J. Bunnell, called upon deponent at his place of business at Knoxdale, Jefferson county, Pa., and then and there endeavored to persuade deponent to purchase and order from plaintiff the jewelry mentioned in the “ two…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
As our courts have, from the earliest days, administered relief, equitable in character, in our common-law forms of action, it is not surprising that we have long lines of decisions defining the conditions under which parol evidence may be offered, to attack a written instrument and the standards, as to quantity and quality, to which that evidence must measure up if the attack is to be successful. Nor is it strange that, in a commercial age, when the number of our business transactions is equalled only by their variety, complexity and magnitude, fraud and covin, the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- American Harrow Co. v. SwoopeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ashland Towson Corp. v. KasunicSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Zeller v. HauptSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Hertzog v. LeonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Birge v. ArmourSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Campbell v. Rhoads, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.