Bank of Morehead v. Hernig
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 219, Jan. T., 1907, by defendants, from order of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 5,188, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Bank of Morehead v. Peter Hernig and Ely K. Richard. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 219, Jan. T., 1907, by defendants, from order of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 5,188, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Bank of Morehead v. Peter Hernig and Ely K. Richard. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the court below for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The criticism of the affidavit by the learned counsel for the appellee has at least some ground to support it, but it may be suggested that a like criticism might have been made by the appellants’ counsel against the statement. We must, however, dispose of the case as we find it, and if . either party suffers by disregarding the well-settled rules of pleading he has no just ground to complain.
This action was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Real Estate Investment Co. v. RusselSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Hoffman v. Foster & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
3Cited by1 opinion
- Palmer v. Associates Discount CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941