Fifth Avenue Bank v. Klauss
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 5, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1898, No. 296, malting absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 5, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1898, No. 296, malting absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The affidavit of defense was as follows: Defendant admits the execution of the note on which suit is brought, and a copy of which is contained in plaintiff’s statement of claim, but defends against the collection of the same from him by the said plaintiff for the following reasons, to wit: The principal in…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There was no error in entering judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. For reasons given by the learned president of the court below, the judgment is affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Homewood Peoples Bank v. CullSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925