Wolf v. Rosenbach
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 120, Not. T., 1896, by-defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Pbila. Co., June T., 1896, No. 651, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Reeder, J., dissents. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was, making absolute the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
This suit was brought against appellant as indorser of a note, viz:
“ Philadelphia, March 2d, 1896.
“1750.00
“ Three months after date I promise to pay to the order of M. P. Rosenbach & Co., seven hundred and fifty dollars at 101 South 13th st., without defalcation, value received.
(Signed) “ Miriam W ole
(Endorsed)
“ M. P. Rosenbach & Co.
“Wole & Co.”
*588The defense to the action, as set out in the affidavit filed, was “ The note upon which this suit is based was drawn by-Miriam H. Wolf to accommodate and for the benefit of deponent (M. P. Rosenbach), with the distinct…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Martin & Monroe v. BerensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Thomas & Sons v. Loose, Seaman & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Phillips v. MeilySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Ziegler v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Clarke v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Appleby v. BarrettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Butler v. KellerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Fidelity Trust Co. v. KohnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Martin v. McCuneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Patton v. FoxSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.