Matawan Tile Co. v. Russo
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 30, March T., 1918, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lackawanna county, March T., 1917, No. 139, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Matawan Tile Company v. Augustine N. Russo. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Newcomb, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 30, March T., 1918, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lackawanna county, March T., 1917, No. 139, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Matawan Tile Company v. Augustine N. Russo. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Newcomb, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit of defense referred to in the opinion of the court are as follows: “7. I aver and expect to be able to prove that the note declared upon by the plaintiff is a note of the Scranton Tile Company, a corporation duly…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiffs action is founded on an endorsement by the defendant of a promissory note given in the following form: “Scranton, Pa., Jan. 22, 1912. Two months after date for value received We promise to pay to the order of Matawan Tile Co., $1122.84, Eleven Hundred Twenty-two and 84/100 Dollars at the Traders National Bank of Scranton, Pa.,.without defalcation— Scranton Tile Co:
“No. Due March 22, 1912.
“A. F. Golden, Mgr.
“Endorsed: Russo Bros. & Co., B. F. Golden, Mgr., A. N. Russo.” To the plaintiff’s action the defendant filed an affidavit of defense in which he…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fisher v. Leader Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Matawan Tile Co. v. GoldenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Pennebaker v. ParkerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907