Penn National Bank v. Kopitzsch Soap Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 302, Jan. T.,1893, by defendant, from order of C. P. Schuylkill Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 78, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit on check.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 302, Jan. T.,1893, by defendant, from order of C. P. Schuylkill Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 78, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit on check. Plaintiff’s statement was as follows, signed by counsel: “ Statement of the plaintiff’s demand made under the provisions of the act of May 25, 1887. “ The above action is brought to recover the amount of a certain promissory note for the sum of $479, with interest thereon from Sept. 23, 1892. “ The following is a copy of the promissory note on which the above action is brought: “ ‘ Kopitzsch…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
The instrument sued on in this case is an ordinary bank check. It was drawn by the company defendant on the Penn*137sylvania National Bank of Pottsville, Pa., in favor of Abram S. Keiser for four hundred and seventy-nine dollars. The plaintiff is not an original party to the instrument. It was necessary therefore that the statement should contain some .averment of the plaintiff’s title or ownership, an averment of presentment to the drawer, and a neglect or refusal to pay on his part, and a statement of the amount claimed to be due to the plaintiff.
These are the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Parry v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Gehret v. Mitten Bank Securities Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Halpern v. AxelrodSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Paterson Savings & Trust Co. v. Kiessling, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lycoming County1950
- Steere v. OakleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.