Umstad v. McNamara
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 113, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant Robert Greig, from order of C. P. No. Phila. Co., March T., 1914, No. 722, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in suit of George B. R. Umstad v. J. J. McNamara and Robert Greig. Assumpsit'on a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the facts. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
The court entered judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The suit was on a promissory note which the defendant and another had signed. In his affidavit he states, "I agreed to affix my signature and did affix my signature in sole dependence and upon the express understanding and agreement with the plaintiff that I was to do so solely for the accommodation of the said J. J. McNamara (the other signer), and as guarantor. I deny that I ever affixed my name to said note as a joint maker thereof. I signed merely as a guarantor.” To overcome the clearly…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Delaware County Trust, Safe Deposit & Title Insurance v. HaserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Chambers v. McLeanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pender v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930