Deacon v. Smaltz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 184, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., March T., 1898 No. 1,000, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Opinion by Smith, J. Rice, P. J., filed dissenting opinion in which Orlady, J., concurs. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficiént affidavit of defense. Before the court in bane.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 184, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., March T., 1898 No. 1,000, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Opinion by Smith, J. Rice, P. J., filed dissenting opinion in which Orlady, J., concurs. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficiént affidavit of defense. Before the court in bane. It appears from the record that suit was brought on a note dated April 29,1896, signed by T. W. Smaltz for $440, two years after date, indorsed by Mary E. Smaltz. Mary E. Smaltz died on July 27,1897, and letters testamentary were granted to Theophilus W.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The defendant is sued as executor of the indorser of a note. He is not called upon, therefore, to meet a claim against him personally, but to make defense to the testator’s contract of indorsement. In law this contract is that if, upon due presentment at maturity, the note be not paid by the maker, the indorser, upon due notice thereof, will pay it. The question here raised is whether the defendant, as executor of the indorser, was duly notified of the nonpayment of the note; more precisely: has such notice been adequately denied by the affidavit, so as to make this a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McPherson v. Allegheny National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Historical Publishing Co. v. HartranftSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by2 opinions
- Eliel v. ChamberlainSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Director General of Railroads v. Pottstown Steel Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County1923