Birge v. Armour
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 87, Oct. T., 1908, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1907, No. 1,321, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of M. H. Birge & Son Company v. Harry M. Armour and George Clark. Assumpsit on a guaranty. 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. 87, Oct. T., 1908, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1907, No. 1,321, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of M. H. Birge & Son Company v. Harry M. Armour and George Clark. Assumpsit on a guaranty. 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 the order of the court discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
The plaintiff bases its right to recover for goods sold and delivered to W. J. Barrett on a writing signed by defendants of which the following is a copy:
“Phila. Pa.
“May 21,1906.
“We the undersigned hereby agree and guarantee to The M. H. Birge & Sons Có., Buffalo, N. Y., the payment of their bill against W. J. Barrett, 1492 N. 52nd St., for goods bought May 18th, 1906, on regular wall paper terms, namely four months from the date of shipment, net, to the amount of One thousand and fifty dollars. $1050.
“George Clark,
“Harry M. Armour.
“Witness:
“W. F. Keleher,
“W. J.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- El Dorado Jewelry Co. v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907