Allentown v. Hartman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 49, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from order of G. P. Lehigh Co., April T., 1902, No. 15, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Allentown v. Sylvester J. Hartman. Assumpsit to recover moneys alleged to have been unlawfully retained by county treasurer.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 49, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from order of G. P. Lehigh Co., April T., 1902, No. 15, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Allentown v. Sylvester J. Hartman. Assumpsit to recover moneys alleged to have been unlawfully retained by county treasurer. The defendant filed the following affidavit of defense : It is true, as alleged in the plaintiff’s statement, that the defendant is the treasurer of Lehigh county and as such received into his hands the moneys set forth in the plaintiff’s statement, and that he did retain as his…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
The question involved in this case has been decided by this court in Kittanning Boro. v. Mast, 15 Pa. Superior Ct. 51, and the judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the court below.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kittanning Borough v. MastSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stroudsburg Borough v. ShickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Snyder County v. WagensellerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917