Dwight v. Singer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 263, Oct. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No-. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 498, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Stanley Dwight v. William E. Singer. Assumpsit on promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 263, Oct. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No-. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 498, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Stanley Dwight v. William E. Singer. Assumpsit on promissory note. From the record it appeared that there was pledged with the note as collateral security 362 shares of the stock of the American Electric Cold Supply Company of Maine, and that this stock had been sold for $10.00. The defendant filed an affidavit and a supplemental affidavit of defense. In the latter was the following averment:…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
On December 31,1897, the defendant gave to the plaintiff his promissory note for $422.67, payable in ninety days from date; and at the same time transferred to him as collateral security 362 shares of stock. The statement of claim shows that this stock was “sold at public auction and realized the sum of ten dollars.” One of the defenses set up in the affidavit of defense is, that at the time of the execution and delivery of the note, the collateral security was worth much more than the face of the note; that the stock was always of sufficient market value to produce…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pauly v. State Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re ThompsonDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1921
- Brukas v. Union National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Dwight v. SingerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907