Louchheim v. Maguire
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 151, Oct. T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pliila. Co., June T., 1897, No. 829, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 151, Oct. T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pliila. Co., June T., 1897, No. 829, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note. It appears from the record and affidavit that this was an action on a promissory note for $500. Defendants filed an affidavit of defense averring that the plaintiff was not a holder of the note for value before maturity and without notice, and further setting out certain defenses on the merits as between the original parties. The material facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. After…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
“ To entitle a plaintiff to judgment for want of an affidavit of defense or for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, the statement of his demand, under the act of May 25, 1887, must be self-sustaining, that is to say, it must set forth in clear and concise terms a good cause of action, by which is meant such averments of fact as, if not controverted, would entitle him to a verdict for the amount of his claim: ” Bank v. Ellis, 161 Pa. 241.
The averments in the plaintiff’s statement that “ The said J. H. Louehheim & Co. then and there indorsed and delivered the said…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Newbold v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Chestnut Street National Bank v. EllisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Lane v. Penn Glass Sand Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- First National Bank v. FurmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897