Federal Sales Co. v. Farrell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 223, Jan. T., 1919, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1918, No. 3153, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Federal Sales Company of Philadelphia v. George H. Farrell. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was in discharging the rule for judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Simpson,
Plaintiff brought suit upon a promissory note for $1,-597; defendant filed an affidavit of defense and claim of set-off growing out of the transaction in which the note was given; plaintiff filed a reply to the claim of set-off, *152and nearly a month, later entered a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The court below discharged the rule, whereupon plaintiff excepted and took this appeal.
It was suggested on the argument that plaintiff’s reply operated as a waiver of its right to judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. It…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Gandy v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Singer Manufacturing Co. v. ChristianSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Morrish v. MorrishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Bordentown Banking Co. v. ResteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Ætna Ins. v. ConferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Parry v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Haverford Township School District v. HerzogSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Wright v. General Carbonic Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Downes v. HODINSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Ward v. ZeiglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.