County Savings Bank v. Gillette
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 336, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Oct. T., 1921, No. 1040, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of County Savings Bank of Scranton v. A. S. Gillette. Buie for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Rule discharged by Maxey, J. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was order, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Plaintiff sued to recover on three promissory notes, aggregating $23,500, made by Atell & Jones, Inc., and endorsed by defendant and four others. A rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense was discharged and plaintiff appealed. The affidavit of defense *263is quite lengthy and avers the notes were given to cover an alleged indebtedness of the American Paper & Twine Company and sets up, inter alia, a contemporaneous parol agreement between defendant and plaintiff, which induced the former to become an endorser and under which the former’s liability was limited to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Helfenstein v. Line Mountain Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Eizen v. Stecker, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Gehret v. Mitten Bank Securities Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Moy v. Colonial Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Marx v. Perrus, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County1927