Peale v. Addicks
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 55, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1895, No. 281, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Dean, J., dissents.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 55, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1895, No. 281, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Dean, J., dissents. Assumpsit on a promissory note against an indorser: ■ Plaintiff’s statement was as follows: Plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of $1,501.54, together with interest thereon, from the 21st day of April, 1895, all of which is justly due from the defendant to the plaintiff upon a promissory note, drawn by the Staten Island Terra Cotta Lumber Company to the order of “ Ourselves,” and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Cegdee Justice Stebbett,
This case was argued with number 209 July term, 1895— John W. Peale against same defendant — supra, p. 543, in which an opinion has just been filed. In principle, the eases are substantially the same. The only alleged difference, that need be noticed, is that in the case referred to the suit was brought by the person for whose accommodation the indorsement by the defendant was made. Li this case, the plaintiff is the immediate indorsee of that person, and received the note from him after maturity. If this be so, he is in no better position than the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bower v. HastingsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
- Hoffman v. Foster & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Wilson v. Mechanics' Savings Bank ex rel. ParkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- Clay v. CottrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
3Cited by4 opinions
- Marling v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Hess v. GowerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Wilhoit v. SeavallSupreme Court of Kansas · 1926
- Newbold v. BoonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898