TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kennett Square National Bank v. Shaw

Kennett Square Nat'l Bank v. Shaw, 58 A. 622 (Pa. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 23, 1904
Docket
Nos. , No. 46
Judges
Brown, Dean, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Thompson
Citations
58 A. 622209 Pa. 3131904 Pa. LEXIS 616
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Contract—Promissory notes—National banks—Affidavit of defense. In an action on a promissory note, by payee against maker, an affidavit of defense that the note was to be discounted for the benefit of a certain corporation, and setting up a written agreement by payee to look to the dividends of said corporation for payment, is sufficient to send the case to a jury.
Summary
Appeal, No. 46, Jan. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1902, No. 1784, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Kennett Square National Bank •v. P. B. Shaw. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit to recover the sum of $5,000. Plaintiff in its statement of claim averred that it held certain obligations of an insolvent corporation, the Avondale Marble Company; that the defendant P. B. Shaw and others organized a corporation known as the Pennsylvania Marble & Granite Company to develop and work the properties formerly owned by the Avondale Marble Company; that defendant made his promissory note for the benefit of said proposed corporation, and plaintiff discounted it with an agreement in writing by the president and secretary of the plaintiff that defendant should not be held personally liable on the note, but that plaintiff would look to the profits of the corporation; but that said corporation had refused to pay any part of its profits to plaintiff and said agreement was never authorized or ratified by the stockholders of the plaintiff. Defendant filed an affidavit of defense setting up in detail the facts, and the written agreement that he was not to be personally liable. The court discharged the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was the order of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam,

The stated cause of action is sufficiently denied in the affidavit of defense to send the case to a jury.

Judgment affirmed and procedendo awarded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1909: 11914: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Faux v. Fitler72 A. 891 (Pa. 1909)
  2. Miller v. Fry57 Pa. Super. 473 (1914)

Most recent

  1. Miller v. Fry57 Pa. Super. 473 (1914)
  2. Faux v. Fitler72 A. 891 (Pa. 1909)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list