Stephens-Adamson Manufacturing Co. v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 265, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P., No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1912, No. 2992, for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Stephens-Adamson Manufacturing Co., a corporation, v. N. Bruce Armstrong. Assumpsit against endorser of a bill of exchange.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 265, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P., No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1912, No. 2992, for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Stephens-Adamson Manufacturing Co., a corporation, v. N. Bruce Armstrong. Assumpsit against endorser of a bill of exchange. Before Sulzberger, P. J. From the record it appeared that the plaintiff in its statement of claim alleged that the defendant was liable as endorser on a bill of exchange accepted by the Armstrong Engineering Company. The defendant filed an affidavit of defense. Subsequently, by leave…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The statement of the question involved is “Did the plaintiff waive its right to move for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense by entering a rule on the defendant to plead, and plea filed in pursuance thereof?” This question has been decided adversely to the appellant in the recent case of Dreifus v. Logan Iron Co., 245 Pa. 196. It is the only question on which the appellant is entitled to be heard. Lincoln v. Wakefield, 237 Pa. 97; Felin v. Philadelphia, 241 Pa. 164, and cases there cited.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lincoln v. WakefieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Felin v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Dreifus v. Logan Iron & Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
3Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. CauffielSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- United Shoe Machinery Co. v. WinstonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914