Weiss v. Marks
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 242, Oct. T., 1902, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 1, Pliila. Co., Sept. T., 1902, No. 3533, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Joseph W. Weiss and Nachman Segal, trading as Weiss & Segal, v. William Marks, Ferdinand Marks and Emanuel Marks, trading as Marks Bros. Assumpsit on book account for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 242, Oct. T., 1902, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 1, Pliila. Co., Sept. T., 1902, No. 3533, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Joseph W. Weiss and Nachman Segal, trading as Weiss & Segal, v. William Marks, Ferdinand Marks and Emanuel Marks, trading as Marks Bros. Assumpsit on book account for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff declared for goods amounting to $800 which were charged on the books of plaintiffs to defendants on May 21, June 4 and July 10. Defendants filed the following affidavit of defense: The…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The appellants’ counsel state the question for decision as follows : “ Where a party sells several invoices of goods, which, by the terms of sale, are due July 31, August 31, September 2 and October 8, 1902, respectively, and enters into a verbal agreement with the purchaser on August 8, 1902, to change the terms of payment by accepting a certain sum generally on *606account of the whole claim, and agrees that the balance of all the invoices shall be paid in three equal installments, on, August 16, 23 and 30, 1902, thereby maturing the payments on the invoices not yet due to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Logan v. CaffreySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Weiss v. MarksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903