Safety Banking & Trust Co. v. Conwell
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 229, Oct. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1904, No. 949, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Safety Banking & Trust Co. v. L. A. Conwell. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
The affidavit of defense is by Mr. Ashton, attorney for the defendant, who deposes, “ that the defendant is a resident of Philadelphia, at the present absent from the state and has been since the filing of the plaintiff’s statement of claim; that it is impossible to get in communication with said defendant for the purpose of procuring from him his affidavit before the time for filing an affidavit of defense expires, as the attorney and representative of the defendant deponent has been advised that said defendant has a just, true and complete legal defense, etc.”
When such…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Newbold v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Griel v. BuckiusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Peck v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Sleeper v. DoughertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Hunter v. ReillySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
3Cited by8 opinions
- Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Yeier v. Hanover Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Phillips v. AllenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Yeier v. Camden Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Strassburger v. Johnson, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.