Sigua Iron Co. v. Vandervort
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 86, Ocfc. T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1893, No. 505, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit to recover stock subscription.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 86, Ocfc. T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1893, No. 505, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit to recover stock subscription. The affidavit of defence was as follows: “ 1. It is not true as alleged by the plaintiff, in its affidavit, that sixty-five per cent of said alleged capital stock, to wit, one hundred shares, was paid at the time of the alleged contract of sale, nor any other sum whatever, aside from the amount paid by plaintiff. Said alleged shares were of an issue of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Plaintiff company’s statement of claim, verified by the affidavit of its president, presents a good cause of action, entitling it.to judgment unless a valid defence has been interposed. Without expressly traversing or denying either of the material averments of fact contained in said statement, the defendant avers : “ That plaintiff is a corporation of West Virginia, and was at the time of the alleged sale or contract, and issuing of stock, in the city of Philadelphia, state of Pennsylvania, attempting to carry on business in this state, although it had not, .as such foreign…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Borough of North Braddock v. Second Avenue Traction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Blue Valley Creamery Co. v. ZimmermanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- J. B. Colt Co. v. Shirk, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Union County1923