National-Dime Bank v. Cleveland Bros. Equipment Co.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County
1Opinion of the Court
Kreider, J.,
— We have before us defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint. Some of these were withdrawn and others were eliminated by certain amendments to the complaint. The remaining objections fall into three classes:
A. That the three “Security Agreements” in question are invalid because they are not signed by the secured party, although they are signed by’ the debtor.
*512B. That the complaint is vague and contradictory-in that it describes in various ways the equipment in question.
C. That the allegations in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the complaint are scandalous, impertinent,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Twin City Motor Co. v. Rouzer Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Associated Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. MastroianniSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Arcady Farms Milling Co. v. SedlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Huber v. CloudSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1925