Baum v. Union Surety & Guaranty Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 260, Oct. T., 1900, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 420, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Adam Baum, Isidore Baum and Nathan Baum, trading as A. Baum & Sons, v. Union Surety and Guaranty Company and Charles D. Hood. Assumpsit on the bond of an agent to recover money which it was alleged the agent failed to pay.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 260, Oct. T., 1900, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 420, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Adam Baum, Isidore Baum and Nathan Baum, trading as A. Baum & Sons, v. Union Surety and Guaranty Company and Charles D. Hood. Assumpsit on the bond of an agent to recover money which it was alleged the agent failed to pay. The defendant, the surety company, filed the following affidavit of defense: John H. Myers, being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say that he is the assistant…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
This action is brought on a bond, conditioned that the principal obligor shall account for and pay over all moneys, etc., received by him as agent of the obligee; and the declaration avers the receipt by him of 11,318.77, with a failure to pay as required by the condition. The r^ply, made by the surety, al*25leges two grounds of defense: 1. That the deponent “ is informed and so believes ” that the principal “ denies the charges and facts set forth in plaintiff’s statement, and claims that he has in all respects, and in manner and form as required by the bond in suit, and by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- King v. Security Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Yeier v. Hanover Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Bushong v. EdwardsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Phillips v. AllenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907