Legal Opinion

New York National Exchange Bank v. Crowell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 1896No. Appeal, No. 199PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal, No. 199, Jan. T., 1896, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 359, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 199, Jan. T., 1896, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 359, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The plaintiff’s statement of claim was as follows: The plaintiff claims of the defendants the sum of $2,500, and the sum of $2.08, the cost of protest, together with interest, on said sums from January 8, 1894, which is justly due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendants upon the cause of action whereof the following is a statement. For several years before the…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Stebbett,

This suit, against Harry P. Crowell and four others trading as the Crowell & Class Cold Storage Co., was brought to recover the principal, interest, etc., of a note for $2,500, at four months from September 5, 1893, made by said company to its own order and by it indorsed, etc.

One of the defendants was not served. Two of the others filed no affidavit and judgment by default was taken against them. The remaining two — appellants in this case — filed an affidavit, which was adjudged insufficient, and judgment was accordingly entered against them. It is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Guckert v. HackeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Watkinson v. Bank of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
  3. Robinson v. FloydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Tonge v. Item Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  2. Bala Corporation v. McGlinnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  3. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Estate of Labrum & Doak v. Bechtle (In Re Labrum & Doak, LLP)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Pinkerton v. Pennsylvania Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  5. Mandeville v. CourtrightCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1905

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API