Deacon v. Smaltz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 184, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., March T., 1898 No. 1,000, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Opinion by Smith, J. Rice, P. J., filed dissenting opinion in which Orlady, J., concurs. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficiént affidavit of defense. Before the court in bane.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 184, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., March T., 1898 No. 1,000, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Opinion by Smith, J. Rice, P. J., filed dissenting opinion in which Orlady, J., concurs. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficiént affidavit of defense. Before the court in bane. It appears from the record that suit was brought on a note dated April 29,1896, signed by T. W. Smaltz for $440, two years after date, indorsed by Mary E. Smaltz. Mary E. Smaltz died on July 27,1897, and letters testamentary were granted to Theophilus W.…
1DissentRice, P. J.
Before the note in suit became due Mary E. Smaltz, the indorser, died, and letters testamentary were issued to Theophilus W. Smaltz, the maker. Suit was brought against him as executor of the indorser, and in his amended statement filed by leave of *155court, the plaintiff averred: “ At maturity of said note, to wit: April 29,1898, it was presented to the maker at the northeast corner of American and Cambria streets and payment demanded, which was refused, and answer made, ‘ It will be attended to.’ ” This averment is not denied in the affidavit of defense; therefore the facts averred must be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- George B. Magruder, in Error v. The Union Bank of Georgetown, in ErrorSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Groth v. GygerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- West Branch Bank v. FulmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846