Meyran v. Abel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 200, Oct. T., 1898, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1898, No. 886, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit by an indorser against a partnership on a partnership note. The substance of plaintiff’s statement is set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 200, Oct. T., 1898, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1898, No. 886, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit by an indorser against a partnership on a partnership note. The substance of plaintiff’s statement is set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The affidavit of defense was as follows: Liverton T. Unks, one of the defendants above named, being duly sworn for liiinself and his codefendant, Martin Abel, deposes and says that he and said Martin Abel have a full defense to the whole of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Fell,
The plaintiff’s statement sets out a complete cause of action, the making and delivery of partnership notes in renewal of prior notes; the indorsement of them by the plaintiff at the instance and request and for the benefit of the defendants, and their payment by the plaintiff after maturity and protest. By reference to the dates of the notes renewed the original debt is carried back as to both series of notes to a time when the firm was in existence and in possession of its assets, although it had ceased active operations. The making and delivery of the prior notes…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fulton v. Central BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rhodes v. TerheydenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Heller's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Wood v. ToddCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1918
- First National Bank of Antigo v. LarsenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911