Backer v. Remov
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 302, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from order of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., July T., 1917, No. 449, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient answer and counterclaim. Assumpsit to recover a bill of merchandise. Before Knowles, J. The pleadings are summarized in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient answer and counterclaim.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiff brought an action of assumpsit in the Municipal Court to recover the balance due for a bill of merchandise sold to the defendant. The latter not de*140nying the correctness of the account set up a counterclaim in excess of $1,500. This claim arose as set forth in the statement out of partnership dealings between the plaintiff and defendant as merchants in the City of Philadelphia where they conducted stores for the sale of woolens, which firm was dissolved as alleged by the defendant on or about the 12th day of December, 1916, by the withdrawal of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wharton v. DouglassSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
- Russell v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- Knerr v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
3Cited by9 opinions
- Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Lyons v. BarnettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Baker v. CarterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Duggan v. DugganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Fearon v. Meads, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, York County1922
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.