Baker Loan & Trust Co. v. Diehl
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 436, Jan. T., 1915, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Franklin Co., Sept. T., 1914, No. 215, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Baker Loan and Trust Company v. Ed. B. Diehl, Daniel Grabill, E. J. Bonbrake. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Buie for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 436, Jan. T., 1915, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Franklin Co., Sept. T., 1914, No. 215, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Baker Loan and Trust Company v. Ed. B. Diehl, Daniel Grabill, E. J. Bonbrake. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Buie for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Gillan, P. J. From the affidavit and supplemental affidavit of defense it appeared that the obligation upon which the action was brought was the debt of the Highland Development Company; that the defendants were simply the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The averments in the affidavit of defense and in the supplement thereto as to the agreement, upon the faith of which the original note and the one in suit were made and delivered to this appellant, were sufficient to prevent the entry of judgment. The Act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64, under which this appeal was taken, was intended to reach only cases of clear error in law in refusing judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense: Ætna Ins. Co. v. Confer, 158 Pa. 598; Ensign, et al., v. Kindred, 163 Pa. 638; Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. Muckle, 198 Pa. 388.
Appeal…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ætna Ins. v. ConferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. MuckleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Ensign ex rel. Paine v. KindredSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mancia v. Marquette National Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924