Leibert v. Hocker
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
PETER Leibert and John Leibert, under the firm of P. and J. Leibert, against John Hocker and Christopher Hocker, executors of Christopher Mason deceased, were the parties in this case. The suit was brought on certain promissory notes, of which Christopher Mason, in his lifetime, was the indorser. Copies of the notes were filed by the plaintiffs in due time.
Read the full summary
PETER Leibert and John Leibert, under the firm of P. and J. Leibert, against John Hocker and Christopher Hocker, executors of Christopher Mason deceased, were the parties in this case. The suit was brought on certain promissory notes, of which Christopher Mason, in his lifetime, was the indorser. Copies of the notes were filed by the plaintiffs in due time. The plaintiffs took a judgment for want of an affidavit of defence, under the 2d section of the act of the 28th of March 1835. obtained a rule on the plaintiff to show cause why the judgment should not be set aside, on the ground that as…
1Per curiam
Although it is true the act of the 28th of March 1835 makes no express provision to exempt an executor or administrator from the necessity of making an affidavit of defence, where the *264action is on the contract of the decedent, yet analogous decisions in our courts, in reference to affidavits of defence generally, have established a rule in favour of such an exemption. It seems to be a sound construction, that the act requiring such affidavits, contemplates actions on the contract of the defendant; but where the cause of action existed at the time of the deatli of the testator or intestate, it…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Edwards v. EwingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1805
- Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. HewesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
3Cited by4 opinions
- Seymour v. HubertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Shearer v. BrinleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
- Helffrich v. GreenbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Myer v. BrielBaltimore City Superior Court · 1894