Brush Hat Manufacturing Co. v. Abeles
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 66, Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. Term, 1909, No. 2,426, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Brush Hat Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, v. Simon Abeles, trading as S. Abeles & Co. Assumpsit to recover the sum of $2,318.18 for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 66, Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. Term, 1909, No. 2,426, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Brush Hat Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, v. Simon Abeles, trading as S. Abeles & Co. Assumpsit to recover the sum of $2,318.18 for goods sold and delivered. The affidavit of defense contained the following averment : After the writ was issued in this case, to wit, on or about January 7, 1910, the plaintiff offered to accept from the defendant in full satisfaction and accord for the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. j.,
A payment of part of a debt, either principal or interest, before it is legally demandable will be sufficient consideration to support an agreement to give time. But such payment after maturity of the debt has not the same effect, "for the plain reason that, in a legal sense, it is neither a benefit to the creditor, who is entitled to the whole, nor *246an injury to the debtor, who ought to have done this and more without any promise from the creditor:” Hartman v. Danner, 74 Pa. 36. For the same reason, part payment of an overdue, ascertained, unrestricted, and undisputed…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Melroy v. KemmererSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Hartman v. DannerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Hendrick v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Brooks v. WhiteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1841
- Girard Fire & Marine Insurance v. CananSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Chatham Communications, Inc. v. General Press Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Shoemaker v. FarrellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Fonner v. McNurlin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Greene County1933
- Wilson EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Luzerne County · 1959