Legal Opinion

Moore v. Eyre

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 14, 1906No. Appeal, No. 86PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 86, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 5, Pbila. Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. 1,889, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of J. Hampton Moore, receiver of the City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety Company of Philadelphia, v. Lincoln L. Eyre. Assumpsit for rent. From the record it appeared that the claim was for $460 for rent, part of which fell due before plaintiff’s appointment as receiver, and the rest thereafter, under a lease executed before the receivership. The defendant filed an affidavit of defense in which he set…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

This action of assumpsit was brought by the receiver for rent, part of which fell due before his appointment, and the residue thereafter, under a lease executed before his appointment. In his affidavit of defense the defendant admitted the correctness of the plaintiff’s claim so far as the amount was concerned, but averred that at the date of the appointment of the receiver, as well as at the prior date when the trust company closed its doors, the company was indebted to him in a considerably larger amount than the rent claimed, which, he asserted, should be set off…

2Cases cited3 opinions

Smucker v. GrinbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
Pierson v. KrauseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
Shea v. WellsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898

3Cited by3 opinions

Tacony Iron Co. v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
Gross v. RicchezzaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
Meskill v. Firemen's Pension FundSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921