Wheatley v. Niedich
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 228, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila Co., Dec. T., 1902, No. 1551, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Seward Wheatley v. Samuel A. Niedich. Assumpsit for balance of purchase money of chattels. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The material averments of the affidavit of defense are set forth in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 228, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila Co., Dec. T., 1902, No. 1551, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Seward Wheatley v. Samuel A. Niedich. Assumpsit for balance of purchase money of chattels. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The material averments of the affidavit of defense are set forth in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was the order of the court discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
This was an action of assumpsit wherein the plaintiff filed his declaration claiming to recover from the defendant $395 with interest from September 26,1900. The plaintiff declared upon a written instrument of which the following is a copy: “ Sept. 26, 1900, in consideration of the sum of $900 the parties hereto agree as follows: Seward Wheatley of the first part sells to Samuel A. Niedich, of the second part all his interest in the Herman Process, a business situated at Nos. 409 and 411 Pearl Street, City of New York, including the good will and chattels of said…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Clinch Valley Coal & Iron Co. ex rel. Grove v. WillingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Janes v. BensonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Irwin v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Schweyer ex rel. Kline v. WalbertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Callan v. LukensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Allinger v. MelvinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Diehl Manufacturing Co. v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Tacony Iron Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Harvey v. DimonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Gandy v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.