Gandy v. Weckerly
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 356, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of Superior Court, Oct. T., 1906, No. 116, affirming order of C. P. No. 5,. Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. 1,261, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of George S. Gandy v. Frank Weckerly. Assumpsit on promissory notes. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was the judgment of the Superior Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
This is an action of assumpsit on a promissory note made by the appellant to the order of the appellee on November 21, 1901, for $1,250, payable one year after date. Judgment was *287entered in the court below for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, which was affirmed by the Superior Court: 34 Pa. Superior Ct. 79. From the judgment of that court we have this appeal.
Appellant’s affidavit of defense, deemed insufficient, is as follows : “ At and prior to November 21, 1904, plaintiff was the owner of the majority of the shares of the capital stock of the Emigrant…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Phillips v. MeilySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Clinch Valley Coal & Iron Co. ex rel. Grove v. WillingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Juniata Building & Loan Ass'n v. HetzelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
- Keough v. LeslieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Greenawalt v. KohneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Speier v. MichelsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Grubb v. RockeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Gulf States Finance Corp. v. Airline Auto Sales Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1965
- Federal Sales Co. v. FarrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Croyle v. Cambria Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.