Wigton v. Climax Coal Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 419, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1917, No. 3341, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of F. H. Wigton, receiver of the Morrisdale Coal Co. to use of Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Climax Coal Co. Assumpsit for breach of contract to sell and deliver coal. Before Martin, P. J. The opinion of the Supreine Court states the facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 419, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1917, No. 3341, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of F. H. Wigton, receiver of the Morrisdale Coal Co. to use of Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Climax Coal Co. Assumpsit for breach of contract to sell and deliver coal. Before Martin, P. J. The opinion of the Supreine Court states the facts. The court entered judgment for $9,784.68, being the portion of plaintiffs’ statement of claim as to which the affidavit was insufficient. Defendant appealed. Error…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sadler,
On December 1,1914, a bill was filed asking that a receiver be appointed for the Morrisdale Coal Company. The appropriate order was made authorizing the temporary continuance of the business, and the appointee, F. H. Wigton, was directed “to complete and fill the contracts entered into by the said corporation remaining unfilled, and to pay for coal purchased from other persons out of the proceeds derived from the sales of such purchased coal.” Subsequently, seventeen petitions, beginning in March, 1915, were presented, and decrees made authorizing the borrowing of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. American Trading Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Chicago Deposit Vault Co. v. McNultaSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Bloom's AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Bartlett v. Cicero Light, Heat & Power Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1898
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Chira v. SaalCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2009
- Gross v. Exeter Machine Works, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Gordon v. Hartford Sterling Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- In Re ChiraUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · 2006
- Hornby v. HornbySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1946
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.