Carlisle & Finch Co. v. Iron City Sand Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 87, April T., 1902, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. 490, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Carlisle & Finch Company v. Iron City Sand Company. Appeal from justice of the peace. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The material averments to plaintiff’s statement appear in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 87, April T., 1902, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. 490, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Carlisle & Finch Company v. Iron City Sand Company. Appeal from justice of the peace. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The material averments to plaintiff’s statement appear in the opinion of the Superior Court. The affidavit of defense was as follows This defendant denies absolutely that it ever entered into a contract with the plaintiff company, either…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
W. D. Porter, J.,
The plaintiff’s statement specifically averred that the steamboat headlight, to recover the value of which this action was brought, was the property of the plaintiff; that upon the order of one Isaac Fry, who assumed to act for and on behalf of the defendant, the headlight was delivered to a common carrier at *380Cincinnati consigned to the defendant company, that the bill of lading was sent to and received by the defendant, that the defendant presented the bill of lading to the carrier at Pittsburg and received and receipted for the headlight, which has ever since…
2Cited by3 opinions
- In re Pittsburgh Industrial Iron WorksDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1910
- Campbell v. Latona Building & Loan Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Koch v. Oil CitySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911