Taggart v. Fox
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks county. This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, brought by Eox against Taggart. The plaintiff filed a copy of the note. Before the time appointed by the rules of the Court for hearing motions for judgment, defendant entered a rule to choose arbitrators, and afterwards in due time, a rule of reference.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks county. This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, brought by Eox against Taggart. The plaintiff filed a copy of the note. Before the time appointed by the rules of the Court for hearing motions for judgment, defendant entered a rule to choose arbitrators, and afterwards in due time, a rule of reference. The court set aside the rules, and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. This was assigned for error.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Black, J.
— This being a suit on a promissory note, comes within the Act of 21st April, 1852, which requires that a full and particular affidavit of defence shall be put in, or judgment may be taken by the plaintiff. The law is unfortunately confined *191to Berks and Tioga counties. No such affidavit was filed, and judgment was taken for want of it.
The constitutional right of the legislature to pass such a law as that of 1852, is again denied. What provision is there in the constitution forbidding the supreme authority of the State to make a regulation for…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Clancy v. NeumeyerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1889
- State v. BlockSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1899
- Neafie's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1937
- Price v. SmockSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1807
- Rice v. OxseniusSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1810
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.