Galey v. Fitzpatrick
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 240, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 8, Phila. Go., Dec. T., 1894, No. 132, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for breach of contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 240, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 8, Phila. Go., Dec. T., 1894, No. 132, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Plaintiff’s statement was as follows : “ The plaintiff on the 6th day of June, 1893, for the accommodation, without any consideration, and at the request of the defendant, gave said defendant a certain promissory note for six hundred dollars, dated June 6, 1893, and payable four months after date, whereof the following is a copy: “$600.00/100 Philadelphia, June 6th,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion bx
Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,
This suit is by the maker of a negotiable note, at four months from June 6, 1893, for $600, to the order of the defendant, indorsed by her and others, a copy of which with the indorsements is set forth in the statement.
In substance, the controlling averments of the plaintiff are that the note was made and delivered by him to the defendant at her request, for her accommodation, and without any consideration, upon her promise to provide funds with which to pay it at maturity, and also to indemnify and save harmless the accommodation maker, both of which…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Williams v. MyersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897