Samuel v. Sota
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 80, Oct. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1908, No. 282, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Frank Samuel and Silas M. Tomlinson, trading as Frank Samuel, v. Sota and Aznar, trading as Sota & Aznar. Foreign attachment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 80, Oct. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1908, No. 282, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Frank Samuel and Silas M. Tomlinson, trading as Frank Samuel, v. Sota and Aznar, trading as Sota & Aznar. Foreign attachment. The defendant filed an affidavit of defense which was as follows: Victor de Ysasi, being duly'sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is .the duly .authorized agent and representative of the United States of the above defendants, Ramon de la Sota and Luis Maria de…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
This action of foreign attachment was instituted by the plaintiff to recover a claim, $776.21. The defendants admitted the correctness of the plaintiff's claim, but in their affidavit of defense they present a set-off or counterclaim, which the court below considered sufficient, and discharged a rule taken at plaintiff’s instance, for want of a sufficient affidavit *635of defense. The appeal was originally taken to the Supreme Court, and was subsequently remanded to this court for consideration. Counsel have presented with exceptional fairness and ability their respective…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Wilson v. WernwagSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Gallagher v. WhitneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Sprissler v. McFetridgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Stone v. Washington Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stevenson v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923