Goodwin v. Schott
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 100 and 101, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiff, Eugene B. Goodwin, from orders of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1893, discharging rules for judgments for want of sufficient affidavits of defence in favor of defendants, Arnold Schott and Bertha Schott. Assumpsit on promissory notes.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 100 and 101, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiff, Eugene B. Goodwin, from orders of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1893, discharging rules for judgments for want of sufficient affidavits of defence in favor of defendants, Arnold Schott and Bertha Schott. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Defendants filed similar affidavits of defence in each case , that filed by Arnold Schott averred as follows: “ The promissory notes sued upon in this case were made by Bertha Schott, his wife, and by him indorsed and delivered to the plaintiff in consideration of the promise and undertaking of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Assuming, as we must in cases of this class, that the defendant is prepared to substantiate, by competent evidence, the material facts averred in his affidavit of defence, there was no error in discharging plaintiff’s rule for judgment. The affidavit of defence is quite sufficient to entitle the defendant to a trial by
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Rothermel v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Augusto v. RomanoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Carrara Paint Agency Co. v. NaylorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907