Legal Opinion

Wittgenstein v. Boback

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northumberland County

Decided June 8, 1936No. 458Published

1Opinion of the Court

Morganroth, P. J.,

Plaintiff, in an action of assumpsit for payment of certain trade acceptances, filed a motion for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

The defense is that the thrown silk delivered to defendant, in payment of which the trade acceptances were given to plaintiff, was defective, in that the silk contained many slack twists, which, when woven and dyed, caused streaks to appear in the product, thereby destroying its value for sales purposes. Plaintiff contends that this defense is evasive and contradictory, fails to set forth sufficient facts, and is a vague,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Close v. HancockSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  2. Gimbel Bros. v. WeaverSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  3. Thornburgh v. West Penn Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API