Snyder v. Lingo
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 191, Oct. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1905, No. 3519, discharging rule for judgment,for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Walter Snyder v. John Lingo. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
This was an action of assumpsit brought to collect the balance due on a written contract for machinery, furnished and set up by the plaintiff in the defendant’s place of business. The errors assigned are to the action of the court in refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
The plaintiff’s statement avers an agreement of October 30, 1901, to erect for the defendant a certain laundry dryer and an automatic shirt, collar and cuff dryer for the price of $825, and admits a payment on account of $340, leaving a balance of $485, with interest, still due…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Schillinger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Gould & Co. v. Gage, Hitchcock & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Boyer v. BullardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
- Preston v. FinneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Buffington v. QuantinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Elzea v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- National Metal Edge Box Co. v. American Metal Edge Box Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Kaye v. Penn Aluminum Construction Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County1954