Harvey v. Dimon
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 16, Jan. T., 1908, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Susquehanna Co., Nov. T., 1906, No. 201, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Arlington C. Harvey v. J. S. Dimon. Assumpsit on a promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 16, Jan. T., 1908, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Susquehanna Co., Nov. T., 1906, No. 201, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Arlington C. Harvey v. J. S. Dimon. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The defendant filed an affidavit of defense which was as follows: That on or about April 30, 1906, a party calling himself Charles Stallsmith, called at his house representing himself as the agent of a concern which he represented was the Columbus Food Company, of Columbus, Ohio, and requested deponent to become an agent of the said…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
The facts of this case, and the various steps taken in the court below to obtain final judgment, are numerous and peculiar. They are fully set forth in the opinion of the court below, refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assuming that that opinion will be brought into the report of the case, we content ourselves with a simple allusion to the main facts, so as to make our opinion intelligible in connection with that of the court below.
The use, by the plaintiff in his declaration, of one out of four distinct parts of which the instrument, upon…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wheatley v. NiedichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- American Harrow Co. v. SwoopeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Machin v. Prudential Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Keeler v. DeWittSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
3Cited by1 opinion
- Neyens v. PortSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911