Hatboro National Bank v. Stevenson
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 238, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1906, No. 3,015, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Hatboro National Bank v. James L. Stevenson. Assumpsit on a promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 238, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1906, No. 3,015, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Hatboro National Bank v. James L. Stevenson. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The note in suit was as follows: “$1175.00. - Phila., Jany. 16, 1906. “ Four months after date I promise to pay to the order of myself Eleven Hundred Seventy-five Dollars at office Ridge Ave. & Diamond St., Phila. without defalcation for value received. “No. Due (Sgd.) James L. Stevenson, “ Endorsed. “ (Sgd.) James L.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiff’s statement of claim contains, in addition to the copy of the note on which the suit was brought and the necessary averments with reference thereto, a history of the obligation. This was apparently introduced to show that the defendant’s liability arose in a transaction had directly with the plaintiff, although the note shows a contract with the estate of William F. Albrecht. It is set forth that the note on which the suit was brought is the last of several renewals and that the first note was given to the plaintiff by the defendant for money loaned to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Liab v. KozuhowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Stern v. DwyerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Punxsutawney Borough v. CarmaltSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909