Legal Opinion

System Co. v. Lycoming Foundry & Machine Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 17, 1911No. Appeal, No. 1PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal, No. 1, Feb. T., 1911, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lycoming Co., June T., 1909, No. 125, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of System Company to use of Everett Rose v. Lycoming Foundry & Machine Company. Assumpsit for money had for the plaintiff’s use. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 1, Feb. T., 1911, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lycoming Co., June T., 1909, No. 125, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of System Company to use of Everett Rose v. Lycoming Foundry & Machine Company. Assumpsit for money had for the plaintiff’s use. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Hart, P. J. The court discharged the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was the order of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

There is no dispute in regard to the facts in this case. The defense presented in the affidavit of defense is one of law. The facts pleaded are substantially these: The Universal Polygraph Company was the owner of an equity in 150 shares of the capital stock of the par value of $100 each of the N. Waldo Harrison Company; it was at the same time indebted to various creditors to the amount of about $3,000; by an agreement in writing dated October 30, 1908, it assigned to the defendant company its interest in the 150 shares of stock of the Harrison company above referred…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Blymire v. BoistleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
  2. Adams v. KuehnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
  3. Torrens v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
  4. Vincent v. WatsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
  5. Beers v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Potter v. City of CoatesvilleDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API