Liab v. Kozuhowski
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 235, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June Term, 1912, No. 5,714, making absolute rule for judgment |or want of a sufficient 3ffid.av.it of defense i.n cuse pf Albert Liab v. Alexander Kozuhowski. Assumpsit upon two promissory notes.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 235, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June Term, 1912, No. 5,714, making absolute rule for judgment |or want of a sufficient 3ffid.av.it of defense i.n cuse pf Albert Liab v. Alexander Kozuhowski. Assumpsit upon two promissory notes. The notes in suit were as follows: “ $156.55. Philadelphia, April 26th, 1912. “ Ninety days after date I promise to pay to the order of myself, One hundred and fifty-six and 55/100 Dollars at the Bank of Commerce, Philadelphia, Pa. Without defalcation for value received. “ (Signed) Alex. Kozuhowski. “ No Due 7/25.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
This is an appeal by defendant from judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in an action of assumpsit *53on two promissory notes drawn by the defendant to his own order and indorsed by him in blank, which, it is alleged in the statement of claim, were given by the defendant to the plaintiff on the day of their date. The statement further avers that the plaintiff is the bona fide holder, for value, of the notes before maturity, and the present holder thereof. The part of the affidavit of defense material upon the present inquiry is, substantially, that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eliel v. ChamberlainSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Hatboro National Bank v. StevensonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dauphin Deposit Trust Co. v. E.C.E.C.S. Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1973
- Laib v. KozuhowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913