Camden National Bank v. Fries-Breslin Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 338, Jan. T., 1905, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1904, No. 508, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of The Camden National Bank of Camden, N. J., v. Fries-Breslin- Company. Assumpsit on a foreign attachment. Before Wiltbank, J. Judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 338, Jan. T., 1905, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1904, No. 508, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of The Camden National Bank of Camden, N. J., v. Fries-Breslin- Company. Assumpsit on a foreign attachment. Before Wiltbank, J. Judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court made absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
In plaintiff’s statement there is an averment that it became the holder of the note in suit for value- before maturity, and without notice of any defense that the maker might have. The *398circumstances under which it obtained the note are set forth in detail. The defendant seeks to avoid liability on the obligation by averring that it was procured by fraud and that the plaintiff is not a bona fide holder for value and without notice. If the note was procured by fraud, the holder would be put to proof of consideration, that it had acted fairly, paid value, and had no…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lerch Hardware Co. v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Real Estate Investment Co. v. RusselSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Hoffman v. Foster & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Hutchinson v. Boggs & KirkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
- Reamer v. BellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
3Cited by9 opinions
- Colozzi v. Bevko, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1955
- Taylor & Co. v. Nehi Bottling Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1930
- Title Guaranty Co. v. BaroneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Eliel v. ChamberlainSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Houston v. McCaslinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.