Rothrock Stores v. Panzera
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 134, April T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Fayette Co., March T., 1918, No. 284, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in the case of The Eothrock Stores, a corporation, for the use of Jersey Shore Trust’ Company, a Corporation, v. Domenick Panzera. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Van Swearingen, P. J. Tlie opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 134, April T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Fayette Co., March T., 1918, No. 284, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in the case of The Eothrock Stores, a corporation, for the use of Jersey Shore Trust’ Company, a Corporation, v. Domenick Panzera. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Van Swearingen, P. J. Tlie opinion of the Superior Court states the case. The court made absolute the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was the decree of tbe…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
Our Negotiable Instruments Act (May 16,1901) deals with a subject that bas long been thought a fit one for uniformity of legislation by all of tbe states. In a large measure tbe end sought bas been accomplished. If there . be involved, in tbe determination of tbe case at bar, tbe question whether or not there bas been an implied repeal of some important provision of this statute by tbe enactment of a later one (Act of May 4, 1915), due consideration of tbe fact we have referred to should not be overlooked. ' Section 52 of tbe Act of 1901 defines a “bolder in due course.”…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Second National Bank v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Dominion Trust Co. v. HildnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. JonesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1937
- Dull v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925