Keller v. Cohen
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 99, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T. 1906, No. 452, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Joseph S. Keller v. Andrew J. Cohen. Assumpsit on two promissory notes, dated November 14, 1898, and February 21, 1899, each for $1,000. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 99, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T. 1906, No. 452, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Joseph S. Keller v. Andrew J. Cohen. Assumpsit on two promissory notes, dated November 14, 1898, and February 21, 1899, each for $1,000. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. In addition to the facts stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court it appeared that the defendants relied upon the following papers: “ Philadelphia, Sept. 8th, 1898. “ Mr. A. J. Cohen, Philadelphia,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
This is an appeal from the order of the court below making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The action is brought on two promissory notes made payable in five years from the date thereof, without interest. No question is raised as to the execution of the notes, but the affidavits of defense, among other things, set up that the appellant was induced to accept the loan, sign the notes and execute and deliver the assignment on the faith of the representation made by the appellee that the loan should be paid out of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Clinch Valley Coal & Iron Co. ex rel. Grove v. WillingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Keough v. LeslieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Fuller v. LawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Wharton v. DouglassSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
- Martin v. FridenbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Gandy v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Second National Bank v. YeagerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Ridgeway Dynamo & Engine Co. v. Pennsylvania Cement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Faux v. FitlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- William F. Mosser Co. v. Cherry River Boom & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.