Brainerd v. Davis
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 153, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1902, No. 489, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of John D. Brainerd, Trustee of the Estate of John W. McFadden, trading as Mechanics Tool Company, v. Rodney Davis. Assumpsit for .goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 153, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1902, No. 489, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of John D. Brainerd, Trustee of the Estate of John W. McFadden, trading as Mechanics Tool Company, v. Rodney Davis. Assumpsit for .goods sold and delivered. 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 in discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
The plaintiff, the trustee in bankruptcy of John W. McFadden, declared in assumpsit upon a book account for goods and merchandise sold and delivered.
Defendant, in his affidavit of defense, distinctly avers that all of said goods and merchandise, save items aggregating $58.46, were sold and delivered under a special contract, in and by the terms of which the same were to be paid for by the defendant “ in trade, that is, he (defendant) would make gear wheels for said McFadden, and would cut any wheels for which he gave orders and would supply him, McFadden, any stock which…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Allegheny City v. McCaffreySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Hutton v. McLaughlinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Lane v. Penn Glass Sand Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Hunter v. ReillySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
- Danziger v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
3Cited by1 opinion
- Scranton City v. WatsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915