Bell v. Gaidula
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
1Opinion of the Court
Eagen, J.,
This is an action in assumpsit on a promissory note. An affidavit of defense raising questions of law contends that the instrument sued on was a joint obligation and plaintiff’s action against this defendant must fail because the other joint obligor is not joined as a party defendant. While we are reluctant to enter judgment in favor of defendant on a technicality, we see no other course open to us. This suit is based on a note dated April 1, 1922, and signed by Peter Gaidula and R. E. Siebecker as makers, wherein we find the words, “For Value Received We Promise to Pay.” For some…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mintz v. Tri-County Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Yadusky v. ShugarsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Pittsley v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Baldwin v. ElySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- City of Philadelphia v. Reeves & CabotSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.