Harding, Whitman & Co. v. York Knitting Mills
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Pennsylvania
At Law. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBALD, District Judge.
It is admitted that the plaintiffs furnished to the defendants cotton yarn to the extent of $4,784.29, which has not been paid for, for which at least the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment. According to the dates of delivery and terms of credit set out in the statement, $1,582.56 of this was due November 10,1904, $2,-561.10 was due December 10, 1904, and $730.63 was due February 10, 1905, making January 20, 1905, as averred by the plaintiffs, as the average date of maturity, from which time interest is claimed. The defendants deny liability for interest, for the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Norrington v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- De Witt v. BerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Richards v. Citizens Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Young v. GodbeSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hammond v. Ocean Shore Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
- Thompson v. Lincoln National Life InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1940
- Baer Grocer Co. v. Barber Milling Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1915
- McMullar Coal Co. v. Champion Coated Paper Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1927
- Hartmann-Schneider Co. v. Farish Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.