Montgomery v. Johnston
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
IN this case the plaintiff filed, in due time, under the act of 1835, a copy of the instrument, on which the action was alleged to be brought, and there being no affidavit of defence, took a judgment under the 2d section of the said act. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should hot be set aside.
Read the full summary
IN this case the plaintiff filed, in due time, under the act of 1835, a copy of the instrument, on which the action was alleged to be brought, and there being no affidavit of defence, took a judgment under the 2d section of the said act. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should hot be set aside. The instrument, a copy of which was filed, was in the following words: “ Philadelphia, February 18th, 1836. Bought of Mr Robert Montgomery one hundred and fifty shares of stock of the Mechanics Bank of the city and county of Philadelphia, at the rate of 68 dollars per share,…
1Opinion of the Court
Pettit, President.
I am of opinion that this rule should be made absolute. I have always considered that the instrument of writing filed should exhibit, on its face, the fact that the liability of the defendant to pay money to the plaintiff was complete at the commencement of the suit, In the present instance, the undertaking is upon a contingency, which it nowhere appears has happened. This distinction, I think, clearly illustrates the true construction of the act of assembly, and furnishes as safe a role as can be adopted for the disposition of questions of this description. Where it is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bank of the United States v. ThayerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Dugan v. Loyd, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1838