Ives v. Scranton Textile Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 41, March T., 1912, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Oct. T., 1911, No. 0,000, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of George H. Ives and E. W. Ives, trading as the Eureka Lumber Company, v. Scranton Textile Company. Assumpsit for lumber sold and delivered. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 41, March T., 1912, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Oct. T., 1911, No. 0,000, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of George H. Ives and E. W. Ives, trading as the Eureka Lumber Company, v. Scranton Textile Company. Assumpsit for lumber sold and delivered. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was in discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The defendant company having become financially embarrassed and a receiver of its property having been appointed by the United States district court a committee representing a majority of the stockholders and a majority of the holders of the company’s securities not covered by mortgages was appointed to submit a proposition for the composition of the defendant’s liabilities. Pursuant to this appointment the committee made a proposition to all of the creditors except mortgagees that payment be made in full to those having claims amounting to less than $100 and that all…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hearn v. KiehlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Laird v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Crawford v. KruegerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rosenblum v. EdwardsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939