Patton v. Fox
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 203, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1902, No. 1809, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Robert A. Patton v. Frederick;S. BAx. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Oblady, J.,
The note in suit is as follows:—
“ $356.50. ■ • Philadelphia, Jan. 7, 1902.
“ Three months after date I promise to pay to the order of Robert A. Patton three hundred and fifty-six 50/100 dollars at 1308 South Í6th St. without defalcation for value received.
“ Frederick S. Fox.”
The defendant admits the execution of the note, and as a defense to its payment sets out a contemporaneous agreement, as follows : “ At the time of the execution of this note it was agreed by and between the plaintiff and defendant that the said note should be renewed by the plaintiff for the period of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wolf v. RosenbachSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Myers v. KippSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Commonwealth Title, etc., Co. v. FolzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Martin v. McCuneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hitchner Wall Paper & Paint Co. v. ShoemakerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- First National Bank v. Crawford, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Blair County1926
- Grange Trust Co. v. American Surety Co. of New YorkDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1928