Hubbard v. French
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal No. 35, Nov. T., 1895, from, judgment of C. P. No. 2,. Phila. Co., June T., 1895, No. 643, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on claim which, as amended, was on two promissory notes alleged to have been given by defendant to plaintiff in settlement of book account.
Read the full summary
Appeal No. 35, Nov. T., 1895, from, judgment of C. P. No. 2,. Phila. Co., June T., 1895, No. 643, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on claim which, as amended, was on two promissory notes alleged to have been given by defendant to plaintiff in settlement of book account. Judgment entered for want, of a sufficient affidavit of defense for 1471.68. The affidavit alleged: That defendant, by reason of the imperfectness of the copy of book account filed, is unable to show and compare his figures with those of the plaintiff. That the account was a running account and that…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Wickham, J.,
The plaintiffs’ claim, at the time judgment was entered, had *220been reduced, by amendments to the two promissory notes, set forth in the statement. These notes, it is alleged, in the statement, were given by the defendant to the plaintiffs* in settlement of a book account.
The affidavit of defense is somewhat deficient in precision, but when analyzed, it will be found to .aver, in substance, as follows: that there was a running account between the defendant and the plaintiffs from the year 1886, to the bringing of the suit, which account had never been closed or settled;…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Comly, Flanigan & Co. v. SimpsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Carrara Paint Agency Co. v. NaylorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Newell Booth Co. v. SheldrakeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Stembridge v. SloanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942