Montgomery v. Lindsay
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 185, Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1909, No. 2,690, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Robert L. Montgomery et ah, trading as Montgomery, Clothier & Tyler, v. James G. Lindsay. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. ■ ' The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 185, Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1909, No. 2,690, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Robert L. Montgomery et ah, trading as Montgomery, Clothier & Tyler, v. James G. Lindsay. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. ■ ' The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
It is conceded that the defendant gave to the plaintiffs, who were regular brokers on the stock exchange at Phila*517delphia, an unconditional order to sell certain shares of stock when the market price of the stock would reach $10.00 per share. It is further agreed that on August 30, 1909, for the first time after the receipt of said order, the market price of the stock rose to the price designated, to wit, $10.00 per share. The plaintiffs, in obedience to the order of the defendant, promptly sold the stock at the price named and have accounted for the proceeds of that sale.
It…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Townsend-Whelen & Co. v. Craig, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1928
- Whelen v. CraigSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929