Haun v. Trainer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 218, Jan. T., 1898, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1897, No. 759, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 218, Jan. T., 1898, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1897, No. 759, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The note sued upon was as follows: “$4000 Philadelphia, Pa., November 4th, 1895. “ One year after date I promise to pay to the order of Dorothea A. Theurer, Pour thousand ($4,000.00) Dollars at 1523 West York Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Without defalcation for Value Received. “ (Sgn) Joseph P. Trainer.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The affidavit of defense sets up that the plaintiff is not a bona fide holder for value of the note sued on, but obtained the same after maturity, and sues in his name only for the purpose of evading the statutory prohibition against the bringing of a suit by a wife against her husband.. It further denies that defendant has deserted his wife, or forced her to leave him. This affidavit is criticized because plaintiff’s statement that the note was indorsed to him for a valuable consideration is opposed by “ a mere averment.” But that is all that was required in…