Appleby v. Barrett
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 227, Oct. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. No. 1, June T., 1904, No. 2336, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of J. Randolph Appleby v. Frank I. Barrett. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The material averments of the affidavit of defense are set forth in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion, by
Porter, J.,
The plaintiff brought this action upon a promissory note payable to his order, made by the defendant, and explicitly averred in his statement that he was a bona fide holder of the note for full value. The defendant filed an affidavit of defense, which the court below upon a rule for judgment held to be sufficient, and the plaintiff appeals.
The affidavit of defense did not deny that the plaintiff had paid full value for the note at the time it was given, nor did it attempt to assert that there had been any failure of consideration. The only defense attempted to be set up…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Clinch Valley Coal & Iron Co. ex rel. Grove v. WillingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Ziegler v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Keough v. LeslieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Clarke v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Wharton v. DouglassSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Michelin Tire Co. v. SchulzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- O'Neil v. BurnettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Eureka Knitting Co. v. SnyderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Digestive Ferments Co. v. American Chemical LaboratoriesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. LenowitzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.