Laib v. Kozuhowski
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 276, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 1,335, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Albert Laib v. Alexander Kozuhowski. Assumpsit on a promissory note drawn by defendant to order of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 276, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 1,335, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Albert Laib v. Alexander Kozuhowski. Assumpsit on a promissory note drawn by defendant to order of plaintiff. The affidavit of defense was as follows: Deponent is advised, believes and therefore avers that the said plaintiff, Albert Laib, is not a bona fide holder for value of said promissory note upon which suit is brought; and that said plaintiff has no interest whatever in said note.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The only noticeable difference between this case and the case between the same parties decided by us in February last, and reported in 53 Pa. Superior Ct. 50, is that the notes involved in the latter were drawn by the defendant to his own order and were indorsed by him in blank, while the note involved in the present *387case was drawn to the order of the plaintiff. In other respects the averments of the statement of claim and of the affidavits of defense in the two cases are substantially the same. In our opinion, the difference we have noted would not justify a different conclusion…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Liab v. KozuhowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913