Moyer v. Kennedy
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 350, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1920, No. 603, in favor of defendant, on question of law raised in affidavit of defense in the case of Mason A. Moyer, William H. Carpenter and David C. Miller, trading as Moyer & Carpenter, v. Ralp Kennedy. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 350, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1920, No. 603, in favor of defendant, on question of law raised in affidavit of defense in the case of Mason A. Moyer, William H. Carpenter and David C. Miller, trading as Moyer & Carpenter, v. Ralp Kennedy. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Shoemaker, J. The defendant filed an affidavit of defense, raising a question of law that, upon the dates set forth in the plaintiff’s statement of claim, plaintiffs were carrying on a business under a fictitious name, and had not filed a…
1Opinion of the Court
In an action of assumpsit to recover for work done and materials furnished, an affidavit of defense which sets forth that the plaintiffs were carrying on a business under a fictitious name and did not file in the office of the secretary of the Commonwealth and in the office of the prothonotary, a certificate, under oath, as required by the Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 645, is sufficient to prevent judgment.
The Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 645, provides that "no individual or individuals shall hereafter carry on or conduct any business under any assumed or fictitious name unless the person or…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Bovaird v. Barrett & SonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Hazle Drug Co. v. WilnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Hughes & Dier v. McClureSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Ferraro v. HinesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Foresman v. Gregg TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.