Augusto v. Romano
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 218, Oct. T., 1909, by defendant, from order of 0. P. No. 4, March T., 1909, No. 2,100, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Augusto v. Cesare Romano. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was in making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
Assuming, as we must, that what is plainly averred in the *20affidavit of defense is true, it would appear that the plaintiff undertook to perpetrate a fraud of the most unblushing character. A fraud, too, so deliberately planned that the books used in his business had been systematically falsified for a period of months before the sale, in order to exhibit a business that would meet the demands of the- warranty given' by the plaintiff. As long as he wears the livery in which the affidavit clothes him, the plaintiff cannot with much force demand that a court should be astute…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Miller Lock Co. v. Diehl Manufacturing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Goodwin v. SchottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894