Faux v. Fitler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 249, Jan. T., 1908, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., March T., 1908, No. 818, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of William J. Faux v. Alfred E. Fitler. Assumpsit upon promissory notes. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. The court made absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
This is an action of assumpsit by the payee against the maker of three promissory notes. The court below entered judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense for-the whole amount of the debt and interest of the notes. We think the judgment is erroneous and that the affidavit was sufficient to send the case to a jury.
This controversy being between the original parties to the notes, the defendant could defeat a recovery by showing a contemporaneous parol agreement between the maker and the payee which induced the former to execute…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gandy v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Clinch Valley Coal & Iron Co. ex rel. Grove v. WillingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Andrews v. Blue Ridge Packing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Keller v. CohenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Kennett Square National Bank v. ShawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
3Cited by19 opinions
- Gulf States Finance Corp. v. Airline Auto Sales Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1965
- Cridge's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Fulton Farmers Ass'n v. BombergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- First Nat. Bank v. BarbeeTennessee Supreme Court · 1924
- Potter v. GrimmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.