Newton Rubber Works v. Kahn
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 286, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 8, Phila. Co., March T., 1897, No. 756, for making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit oh a promissory note and a book account. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The averments of the affidavit of defense and the supplemental affidavits of defense sufficiently appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 286, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 8, Phila. Co., March T., 1897, No. 756, for making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit oh a promissory note and a book account. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The averments of the affidavit of defense and the supplemental affidavits of defense sufficiently appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court made absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McCollum,
This suit is based on a note of $2,800 and a book account of $1,200. There is nothing in the statement of the plaintiff’s claim which indicates that the note was given for merchandise, but it is declared therein that the book account is for goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, “ without any guarantee.” The defendant, however, avers in his affidavits of defense that the note and book account represent the price of bicycle tires purchased by him of the plaintiff, on the representation and guarantee of its duly authorized agents that they “ were of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Everett Consolidated Shingle Co. v. McLaughlinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911