Wanamaker v. Quinn
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 220, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1904, No. 4298, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of John Wanamaker, Thomas B. Wanamakei’, Robert C. Ogden and L. Rodman Wanamaker v. Bernard J. Quinn. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.- Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 220, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1904, No. 4298, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of John Wanamaker, Thomas B. Wanamakei’, Robert C. Ogden and L. Rodman Wanamaker v. Bernard J. Quinn. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.- Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was the order of the court making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
The plaintiff brought an action in assumpsit, and filed a declaration for goods sold and delivered to the defendant upon book account, and attached a copy of the account and made it part of the declaration. The declaration does not state when the goods were sold and delivered, but that is ascertained by referring to the copy of the account attached, which shows an itemized statement of goods sold in June, 1898, and on July 1 and 2 of the same year. The amount of the claim stated in the declaration is $823.27, with interest from March 15,1899.
The defendant filed an…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hunt v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- North German Lloyd Steamship Co. v. WoodSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Halfpenny v. BellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Lierz v. MorrisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902