Blumenthal Bros. & Co. v. Whitaker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 193, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March Term, 1894, No. 804, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for merchandise sold and delivered. Judgment was entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. See also Fourth Street National Bank v. Whitaker, 170 Pa. 297. Error assigned was order entering judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
The court below made absolute a rule to show cause why judgment should not be given for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, and defendant appeals.
A full statement of the facts concerning the organization in December, 1891, of the partnership of Haines & Company, of which defendant was a member, down to the assignment for benefit of creditors, on 26th March, 1894, is given in the opinion filed herewith, in ease of Fourth Street National Bank against the same defendant; so the same facts need not here be repeated. There is a difference, however, between the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Laflin & Rand Co. v. Steytler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1892
- Maloney v. BruceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Cock v. Bailey, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1892
- Vanhorn v. CorcoranSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Sheble v. Strong, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Chatham National Bank v. GardnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906