Lowenstein v. Michael
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 116, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1911, No. 4,075, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Sol. Lowenstein to use of Max Hirseh v. Johanna Michael, Executrix, and Leon Michael, Executor of the Estate of Samuel Michael, deceased. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Wiltbank, J. From the record it appeared that the defendant filed two affidavits of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 116, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1911, No. 4,075, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Sol. Lowenstein to use of Max Hirseh v. Johanna Michael, Executrix, and Leon Michael, Executor of the Estate of Samuel Michael, deceased. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Wiltbank, J. From the record it appeared that the defendant filed two affidavits of defense. The first was in general terms denying liability, and the second set up payment. No special notice was given as required by rule of court of any other defense. At the trial…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiff’s action is based on a promissory note. When the note was offered in evidence objection was made that it was not admissible without proof of its execution. This objection was overruled and the evidence admitted. This action is excepted to in the third assignment. The maker of the note was dead at the time the action was brought, and after the summons was served the executors filed an affidavit of defense which in general terms denied the liability of the estate but stated the inability of the deponents to obtain sufficient information to enable them to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mutual Life Insurance ex rel. Scott v. TenanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Seymour v. HubertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Helffrich v. GreenbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Perkins v. HumesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Dunlap v. MilesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1807