Hall's Safe Co. v. Walenk
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 36, March T., 1910, by defendant, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., May T., 1909, No. 308, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Hall’s Safe Company v. Mathies Walenk. Replevin for a safe. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
This is an action of replevin. The plaintiff’s claim is based on a contract executed by the defendant in which the latter agreed to lease a certain safe according to the terms set forth in the contract. The plaintiff’s title is not denied in either of the affidavits of defense filed. The right of recovery is disputed, however, on three grounds: (1) that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation engaged in business in Pennsylvania without being registered as required by the Act of April 22,1874, P. L. 108; (2) that the safe was not of the land and quality represented by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- National Cash Register Co. v. CochranSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
3Cited by17 opinions
- Blossom Products Corp. v. National Underwear Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. CaiazzoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Meaker Galvanizing Co. v. Charles E. McInnes & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Lee-Strauss Co. v. KellySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- C. H. Hardy Auto Co. v. PoseySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.