Comly v. Bryan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. These cases were brought into this Court by writ of error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia, and were argued together. The first was an action of assumpsit, brought to June term, 1838, by Timothy M. Bryan, John Rodman, and Isaiah B. Heylin, trading as Bryan, Rodman & Heylin against Samuel Comly, as acceptor of a bill of exchange drawn by Rising & Harris.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. These cases were brought into this Court by writ of error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia, and were argued together. The first was an action of assumpsit, brought to June term, 1838, by Timothy M. Bryan, John Rodman, and Isaiah B. Heylin, trading as Bryan, Rodman & Heylin against Samuel Comly, as acceptor of a bill of exchange drawn by Rising & Harris. The second action which was brought to September term, 1838, was brought by the same plaintiffs against Rising & Harris, the drawers of the bill. The plaintiffs filed in each action a copy of the bill of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
The affidavit of defence required by the second section of the act of the 28th of February, 1835, must be construed most favourably for the plaintiff, as it is altogether probable that the defendant will in all cases state the nature and character of the defence, as strongly as the facts will justify. We can at any rate make no intendments for him. The Court have a right to expect a clear and distinct averment of the fact on which the defence must turn. These suits, which we consider together, are brought by the endorsees of a bill of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kent, Santee & Co.'s AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878