Leas v. Hafer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 7, March T., 1909, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Adams Co., April T., 1908, No. 363, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of W. G. Leas v. F. K. Hafer. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
It is not claimed on behalf of the defendant that the first affidavit of defense is sufficient. It is a bare allegation that the note which was the foundation of the action had been fully-paid and settled and that there was nothing due thereon. The supplemental affidavit of defense enlarges somewhat on these averments, but in substance is of the same effect. It may be inferred from the defendant’s statement that there were several accounts or claims due from him to the plaintiff growing out of their previous association in the bank, and the impression produced by the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Philadelphia v. StewartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- N. Holmes & Sons v. Briggs & DrumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Stockley v. RiebenackSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- McCracken v. First Reformed Presbyterian CongregationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Hiestand v. Williamson, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Brooks v. RudolphSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
- Wayne Tank & Pump Co. v. Thomas Petroleum Products Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Powel v. KahlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Gimbel Bros. v. WeaverSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- National Deposit Bank v. MawsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.