Conrade v. O'Brien
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal No. 46, Nov. T., 1895, by plaintiff, on the order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 449,. discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit to recover $248.60, the amount of two due bills drawn by defendant in favor of plaintiff’s assignor. Instead of being payable in money the due bills were to be paid in “ trade house.”
Read the full summary
Appeal No. 46, Nov. T., 1895, by plaintiff, on the order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 449,. discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit to recover $248.60, the amount of two due bills drawn by defendant in favor of plaintiff’s assignor. Instead of being payable in money the due bills were to be paid in “ trade house.” This fact appears on the writings, is asserted in plain-. tiff’s statement, and is admitted in the affidavit of defense, where it is set up as a defense to the action. The plaintiff entered a rule for judgment for want…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Wickham, J.,
This suit was brought by the appellant, as assignee, for the benefit of creditors of Eustace & Co.
The material facts, as revealed by the statement of claim and affidavit of defense filed, are as follows: Eustace & Co. roofed thirty houses for Michael E. O’Brien, the defendant in the court below, and appellee here. It was agreed between the parties that Eustace & Co. should select and purchase, at a proper valuation, one of these houses, and that one third of the cost of roofing should be applied to the purchase money. This agreement was evidenced by the following…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mellon v. DavisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Soles v. HickmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Ferguson v. StaverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Greenlee v. GreenleeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Sands, Herdic & Co. v. ArthurSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. v. LampSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Roberts v. RoeschSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Martin-Nelly Grocery Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1923