Klee v. Trauerman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 202, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1904, No. 978, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Simon J. Klee and Leon S. Klee, copartners, trading as Joseph Klee’s Sons, v. B. S. Trauerman and I. G. Trauerman, copartners, trading as B. S. Trauerman & Brother. Assumpsit upon a written agreement. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 202, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1904, No. 978, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Simon J. Klee and Leon S. Klee, copartners, trading as Joseph Klee’s Sons, v. B. S. Trauerman and I. G. Trauerman, copartners, trading as B. S. Trauerman & Brother. Assumpsit upon a written agreement. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Potteb,
Judgment was entered in this case for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The action was brought upon a written agreement, into which the defendants had entered, reciting that they had assigned to plaintiffs a mortgage and certain policies of life insurance, having cash surrender values, to secure plaintiffs for a loan of. $11,500, theretofore made by them to defendants. Plaintiffs agreed to reassign the securities if the loan was paid within one year. Defendants agreed that if the loan was not paid within one year the plaintiffs might realize from the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hartranft's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- O'Neill v. WhighamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878