Quaker City Apartment House Co. v. Matthews
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 272, Oct. T., 1901, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1901, No. 2391, making absolute rule for judgment for war/ of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Quaker City Apartment House Company v. Francis B. Matthews. Assumpsit on a subscription to stock. The averments of the statement of claim and the affidavit of defense sufficiently appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 272, Oct. T., 1901, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1901, No. 2391, making absolute rule for judgment for war/ of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Quaker City Apartment House Company v. Francis B. Matthews. Assumpsit on a subscription to stock. The averments of the statement of claim and the affidavit of defense sufficiently appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
In an action of assumpsit on an agreement to subscribe to the stock of a foreign corporation not registered in Pennsylvania, it appeared from the statement of claim that the prospectus which was attached to and made part of the subscription agreement contained the following representation : “ The company has purchased the property corner of Thirty-sixth and Chestnut streets, for the purpose of erecting thereon the Norman-die Apartment House, and now offers for sale 20,000 shares of six per cent preferred stock at 15.00 per share.” It was further alleged in the statement…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Caley v. Philadelphia & Chester County RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
- Auburn Bolt & Nut Works v. ShultzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Manheim, Petersburg & Lancaster Turnpike or Plank Road Co. v. ArndtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Spellier Electric Time Co. v. LeedomSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892