Legal Opinion

Ford Motor Co. v. Sweeten Automobile Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 23, 1935No. Appeal, 249PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

Plaintiff sued to recover the amount of two promissory notes executed by defendant to the order of plaintiff, as follows: One for $4,500 dated February 3,1924, payable November 5, 1924, and the other for $2,300 dated March 3,1924, payable December 3,1924. In its affidavit of defense, defendant evasively denies liability on the notes, ánd in its counterclaim avers that plaintiff is liable to it in the sum of $227,424.22, on a cause of action therein detailed. During the trial, defendant abandoned its de nial of liability on the notes, and continuously thereafter…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kuhn v. BuhlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  2. Leland v. FordMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Hays' EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  4. Slingluff v. EckelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855
  5. Barton v. BensonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Constructors Ass'n of Western Pennsylvania v. SeedsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Alliance Metals, Inc. v. Hinely Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000
  3. Roeting v. County of LancasterCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Alliance Metals, Inc. v. Hinely Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API