Longstreth v. Gray
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 262, Oct. T., 1909, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1909, No. 676, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Charles A. Longstreth v. John Gordon Gray. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of .the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 262, Oct. T., 1909, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1909, No. 676, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Charles A. Longstreth v. John Gordon Gray. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in 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
Per Curiam,
This appeal is without merit. The action was assumpsit against John Gordon Gray. The statement averred, with precision as to details of time and place, that John Gordon Gray made and delivered to Charles A. Longstreth, the plaintiff, a promissory note, a copy of which is set forth at length; that certain payments had been made upon the note; and that a balance, specifying it, was justly due and remained unpaid, “although demand has been made by the plaintiff upon the said John Gordon Gray for the payment of the same since the same became due.”
The statement in the defendant’s…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McConeghy v. KirkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Mink v. ShafferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889