Louchheim v. Maguire
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 377, Jan. T., 1897, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1897, No. 831, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of de fense. Assumpsit by indorsee against makers of a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The averments of the affidavit of defense sufficiently appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 377, Jan. T., 1897, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1897, No. 831, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of de fense. Assumpsit by indorsee against makers of a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The averments of the affidavit of defense sufficiently appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court made absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was above order.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McCollum,
J. H. Louchheim & Co. are the payees named in the note in suit, and the defendants are the makers of it. The payees indorsed and delivered it to the plaintiff who has not alleged in the statement of his claim that he received it before maturity, or that he is the owner of it. The defendants, however, have averred in their affidavit of defense that they are informed, and that they believe and expect to be able to prove that he is not a bona fide purchaser of it for value before maturity, and that he now holds it for collection and in the interest of the parties…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Independent Harvester Co. v. AndersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1921
- Medallion Distributing Corp. v. Bair, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1926