Robinson v. Floyd
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209 and 210, Oct. T., 1893, by defendants, Graham Scott, H. J. Murdoch, C. F. Klopfer, Edward House and Wilson S. Arbuthnot et al., executors of Chas. S. Arbuthnot and J. S. Wallace, executor of Archibald Wallace, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1891, No. 385, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in favor of plaintiff, Samuel Robinson.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209 and 210, Oct. T., 1893, by defendants, Graham Scott, H. J. Murdoch, C. F. Klopfer, Edward House and Wilson S. Arbuthnot et al., executors of Chas. S. Arbuthnot and J. S. Wallace, executor of Archibald Wallace, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1891, No. 385, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in favor of plaintiff, Samuel Robinson. Assumpsit for deposit in unincorporated bank. In this action, brought Sept. 18,1891, against William Floyd, Thomas Floyd, James W. Arrott, Charles Arbuthnot,…
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion bv
Mr. Justice Thompson,
December 30, 1893:
The appellants in their affidavits of defence invoke the protection of the statute of limitations. The dormant nature and character of the demand fully warranted them in seeking to secure from it the repose contemplated by the statute. This suit was brought by appellee against appellants, as partners doing business as the American Bank, for the recovery of money received by the bank from time to time, commencing in 1870, and upon which interest, first at six per cent, subsequently at five per cent and finally at three per cent, was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson & Sons v. Waugh, Jack & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882