Newell Booth Co. v. Sheldrake
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 3, Oct. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1902, No. 1, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is case of Newell-Booth Company, Limited, v. Charles M. Sheldrake. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The material averments of the affidavit of defense are set forth in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 3, Oct. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1902, No. 1, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is case of Newell-Booth Company, Limited, v. Charles M. Sheldrake. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The material averments of the affidavit of defense are set forth in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was the order of the court. cited: Hoffner v. Logan Square Building and Loan Association, 4 Penny. 363; Hubbard v. French, 1 Pa. Superior Ct. 218; Teller v. Sommer,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
Plaintiff sued in assumpsit to recover the amount of three certain promissory notes made and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a declaration and so complied with the law and rules of court that the defendant was required to file an affidavit of defense, which he did. On motion of plaintiff the court adjudged the affidavit of defense insufficient, and on December 29, 1902, granted judgment against the defendant, which was liquidated and entered for the sum of $142.82. The defendant then took an appeal to this court and assigned for error: “…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hubbard v. FrenchSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Teller v. SommerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Clement v. ReppardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850