Southern Steamship Co. v. Hull
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 175, Oct. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1909, No. 2,639, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Southern Steamship Company, v. Daniel A. Hull, trading as Monarch Delivery Company. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
This action is in form assumpsit and the plaintiff appeals from the refusal of the court below to grant judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Plaintiff’s declaration avers that it is a common carrier and in the course of its business it frequently received shipments of merchandise from points outside of Philadelphia, by rail, billed through to destination over the said railroad and the plaintiff’s line of steamships. It thereupon became the duty of the said plaintiff to receive said shipments from the said railroad companies and haul the same to its…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Corry v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Ætna Ins. v. ConferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Ensign ex rel. Paine v. KindredSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Porter v. HildebrandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Radcliffe v. HerbstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Platt v. PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Coyle v. SchrullSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Webber v. Federal Reserve BankPennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · 1931