Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. A. B. Baxter & Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 26, 1912No. Appeal No. 200PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Appeal No. 200, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants, from order of O. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Second Term, 1911, No. 554, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in. case of Commonwealth to use of Charles A. Gettman v. A. B. Baxter and Company, Inc., John Newell and Eugene P. Whitcomb. Assumpsit on a bond given to dissolve a foreign attachment. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Read the full summary

Appeal No. 200, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants, from order of O. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Second Term, 1911, No. 554, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in. case of Commonwealth to use of Charles A. Gettman v. A. B. Baxter and Company, Inc., John Newell and Eugene P. Whitcomb. Assumpsit on a bond given to dissolve a foreign attachment. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was order making absolute ruie for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Elkin,

This is an appeal by the sureties on a bond given to dissolve a foreign attachment. The principal defendant, a foreign corporation organized for the purpose of conducting a brokerage business, was brought into the court below on a writ of foreign attachment. The amount of the bank deposit attached, expressed in even numbers, was $8,000.00; the margins called by the brokers, and paid by Gettman on his speculative account, were $23,000.00; the liquidated damages claimed, being the sum demanded at the time the writ issued, were $83,000.00; the penalty of the bond…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Scovill v. GlasnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  2. Hurst v. Detroit City RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Commonwealth v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  4. Holmes v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  5. Morgan v. . HedstromNew York Court of Appeals · 1900

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. G. B. Hurt, Inc. v. Fuller Canneries Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  2. McIntyre Square Associates v. EvansSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Frankel v. Donehoo (Nesbitt)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  4. Johnson v. Fremont Canning Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Hudson Engineering Co. v. ShawCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API