Law v. Waldron
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 95, Jan. T., 1910, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. Term, 1909, No. 2,653, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of John H. Law and George W. Law, copartners, trading as Law Brothers, Trustees for the Royal Insurance Company, Ltd., of Liverpool, England, v. Alfred M. Waldron. Assumpsit to recover balance alleged to be due by an agent.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 95, Jan. T., 1910, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. Term, 1909, No. 2,653, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of John H. Law and George W. Law, copartners, trading as Law Brothers, Trustees for the Royal Insurance Company, Ltd., of Liverpool, England, v. Alfred M. Waldron. Assumpsit to recover balance alleged to be due by an agent. The material averments of the statement of claim and the affidavit of defense are set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court by Brégy, P. J., filed the following…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Moschzisker,
The plaintiffs took a rule for judgment for “so much of the amount claimed by the statement as to which the affidavit of defense is insufficient.” The rule was made absolute and a judgment entered, from which the defendant has appealed.
In January, 1904, the defendant signed a contract with the German National Insurance Company, of Illinois, to act as its general agent in Philadelphia and vicinity, and in March, 1904, he entered into a precisely similar contract with the German Insurance Company, of Illinois. These contracts provide, art. I, for the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Treat v. Pennsylvania Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Loeser v. Erie City Rag WarehouseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Markley v. StevensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Pierson v. KrauseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Appeal of HammondSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- O'Malley v. O'MalleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Michelin Tire Co. v. SchulzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- O'Neil v. BurnettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Feather v. HusteadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- duPont v. Standard Arms Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1912
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.