Wanner v. Emanuel's Church of Evangelical Ass'n
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 307, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from order of C. P. Berks Co., Nov. T., 1894, No. 84, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 307, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from order of C. P. Berks Co., Nov. T., 1894, No. 84, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts appear by the opinion of Endlich, J., which was as follows: This suit is brought by plaintiff against defendant, a corporation, upon certain promissory notes, of which the following are copies: $425. Fleetwood, October 5,1889. Six months after date we promise to pay to the order of George Knoll four hundred…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The plaintiff’s statement did allege that the money for which the notes in suit were given was lent to the defendant corporation, and that the persons signing were trustees of the defendant and were duly authorized to execute and deliver the notes in question. These averments are not denied in the affidavit of defense. The matters which are there averred we do not regard as a defense to these notes. We are satisfied with the reasoning and authorities expressed and cited in the opinion of the learned court below, and that the conclusion reached was correct.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Hill Estate Co. v. WhittleseyWashington Supreme Court · 1899
- DeRoy v. RichardsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Chips Distributing Corp. v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1966
- In re LaskinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
- Paist v. SpittallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.