Bordentown Banking Co. v. Restein
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 207, Jan. T., 1905, by-defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1905, No. 4127, making absolute rule for judgment for want of an affidavit of defense in case of Bordentown Banking Company v. Rebecca Restein, trading as E. P. & L. Restein Company. Rule for judgment for want of an affidavit of defense. From the record it appeared that the suit was on a promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 207, Jan. T., 1905, by-defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1905, No. 4127, making absolute rule for judgment for want of an affidavit of defense in case of Bordentown Banking Company v. Rebecca Restein, trading as E. P. & L. Restein Company. Rule for judgment for want of an affidavit of defense. From the record it appeared that the suit was on a promissory note. On May 31,1905, the following paper was filed of record: “ SUGGESTION OE DEFENSE. “ John Sparhawk, Jr., suggests to the court that the statement of plaintiff’s claim filed in above case is…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Mitchell,
The appellant by her attorney filed of record a suggestion that the statement of claim was insufficient to entitle plaintiff to judgment for want of an affidavit of defense. This' was in accordance with established practice: Sylvester v. Thompson, 11 W. N. C. 208; Endlich on Affidavits of Defense, sec. 655. The'practice has not been changed by the act of 1887, though it will probably be of much less frequent occurrence in future, since the affidavit is now required to meet the statement of claim instead of the mere copy of the instrument sued on as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Superior National Bank v. StadelmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Barndollar v. FogartySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- O'Neal v. RuppSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- West v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Duncan v. Bell, Johnston, Jack & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Fuel City Mfg. Co. v. Waynesburg Products Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Federal Sales Co. v. FarrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Vision Service Plan v. Pennsylvania AFSCME Health & Welfare FundSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- American Finance Co. v. TrachtmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.