Mantua Hall & Market Co. v. Brooks
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 107, July T., 1893, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March • T., 1893, No. 522, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in assumpsit for breach of executory contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 107, July T., 1893, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March • T., 1893, No. 522, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in assumpsit for breach of executory contract. Plaintiff’s statement was as follows : “ The Mantua Hall & Market Company, the plaintiffs in the above case, to the use and for the benefit of the stockholders of said company, claim to recover from John Brooks, the defendant therein, the sum of $2,549.68, with legal interest, which plaintiffs aver…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb.. Justice McCollum,
The Mantua Hall and Market Company entered into a contract with John Brooks on the 8th of February, 1892, in which he agreed within ninety days from the date thereof to pay off' and cancel $25,000 of bonds secured by a mortgage on property which the company conveyed to him, “and have said mortgage satisfied of record.” He also agreed therein to in*48demnify the company and the stockholders thereof, against “ all claims and demands of the holders of said bonds and mortgage.” He did not pay off and cancel the bonds and have the mortgage satisfied, nor indemnify the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barr v. McGarySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Vulcanite Paving Co. ex rel. City of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
3Cited by2 opinions
- Holland v. Sunbury Iron WorksSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Edward F. Gerber Co. v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1914