Weiss v. Marks
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 330, Jan. T., 1902, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1902, No. 3893, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Joseph W. Weiss and Nachman Segal, Co-partners, trading as Weiss & Segal, v. William Marks, Ferdinand Marks and Emanuel Marks, trading as Marks Bros. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 330, Jan. T., 1902, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1902, No. 3893, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Joseph W. Weiss and Nachman Segal, Co-partners, trading as Weiss & Segal, v. William Marks, Ferdinand Marks and Emanuel Marks, trading as Marks Bros. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The material portion of the affidavit of defense was as follows : “ That the plaintiffs, by and through their said duly authorized agent, Charles J. Schulze, on August 8, 1902,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The supplemental affidavit of defense set up that defendant being indebted to plaintiffs on several purchases of goods, the agreed term of credit on some of which had not expired, on August 8, 1902, made a settlement with the plaintiffs by which the latter agreed to accept $2,000 in cash on general account, and the balance in three equal installments in one, two and three weeks thereafter; that the cash payment was made; and that thereby the time of payment of some of the bills for purchases was advanced to an earlier date than at that at which they would otherwise have matured;…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ebert v. JohnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Hartman v. DannerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
3Cited by1 opinion
- Weiss v. MarksSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903