Brackett v. VanCourt
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 270, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1913, No. 205, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Edward T. Brackett v. Howard M. VanCourt, E. Clarence Miller and Henry E. Woodman. Assumpsit for moneys expended. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
The plaintiff seeks to recover $550.47, with interest, which sum represents money expended by him for traveling expenses, telegraph messages, etc., in conducting certain proceedings at law for bondholders of a corporation.
It is conceded that the expenses were necessary and reasonable in amount, and that the three named defendants were constituted by certain holders of bonds of *372the Danbury & Harlem Traction Company a committee to represent the holders of the first mortgage bonds of that company, who were or might become parties to an agreement and by depositing the bonds…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eichbaum v. IronsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Beeson v. LangSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877