Northern Nat. Bank v. Hoopes
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
On Rule for Judgment for Want of Sufficient Affidavits of Defense.
1Opinion of the Court
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
These cases have been argued together upon the plaintiffs rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in each of them. They present the same questions, and may both be disposed of in a single opinion.
*936The actions are brought upon a promissory note, as follows:
$8,100. Philadelphia, 1st April, 1899.
Pour mouths after date, I promise to pay to the order of Vulcan Iron Works Oo. thirty-one hundred dollars, at Northern National Bank, Toledo, Ohio, without defalcation, for value received.
[Signed] John McGill White.
No. -. Due,-.
[Indorsed]
Prank 0. Smythe.
Herman…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Swift v. TysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Railroad Co. v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Bank of United States v. DunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Martin v. ColeSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Watson v. TarpleySupreme Court of the United States · 1856
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. Nelson Land & Cattle Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
- Capital City State Bank v. SwiftDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 1923
- Farnham Co. v. Southeastern Const. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1906