Young v. Corder
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was a capias ad respondendum, and this application was founded on an alleged defectiveness of the following affidavit, which,was duly filed: “Samuel P. Williams, agent for the plaintiff above named, being duly sworn, doth say, that the defendants above mentioned are justly and truly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $614 29 cents and interest, being the amount of a promissory note given by defendants to the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff…
Read the full summary
THIS was a capias ad respondendum, and this application was founded on an alleged defectiveness of the following affidavit, which,was duly filed: “Samuel P. Williams, agent for the plaintiff above named, being duly sworn, doth say, that the defendants above mentioned are justly and truly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $614 29 cents and interest, being the amount of a promissory note given by defendants to the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, said note bearing date the 17th of August, 1836, payable at six months after date, and which still…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.—
The affidavit in Bland v. Drake, 18 E. C. L. Ü. 58, bears a very close resemblance to the present affidavit. The alleged defect there and here may be regarded as precisely similar. We think that decision was correct, and accordingly direct this rule to be discharged.
Rule discharged.a
Vide Comly v. Goldsmith; McCanles v. Frederickson; Benedict v. Whartenby and Kelly v. Kintzing, in this volume, and the index.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hellman v. FowlerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1866
- Election CasesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870