Fischer v. Dalmas
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Fischer v. Dalmas, 173 Pa. 296 (Pa. 1896)
34 A. 435; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 698
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams
Fischer v. Dalmas
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
We are not convinced that the learned court erred in refusing to enter judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Inasmuch as the case goes back for a jury trial, it is neither necessary nor desirable to discuss the questions presented by the affidavit of defense. If the plaintiff had been disposed to waive his right of appeal to this court and proceed to trial, he might have had his-case finally disposed of long ago.
Appeal dismissed, at plaintiff’s costs, without prejudice, etc.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- William G. Fischer v. Louis Dalmas
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Affidavit of defense — Promissory notes — Bailment. In an action upon a promissory note an affidavit of defense is sufficient to prevent judgment which avers that defendant rented a piano from plaintiff under an agreement of bailment, with right to purchase; that after several payments of rent by defendant he gave to plaintiff the note in suit for the remaining value of the piano, under an agreement that if defendant could not pay the note, or desired to surrender the instrument, that the plaintiff would take the same back again and surrender and cancel the note; that upon the maturity of the note defendant told plaintiff that he could not pay it, and that he, the plaintiff, could have the piano back whenever he wished the same, in accordance with their agreement; that afterwards he tendered the instrument and demanded the return of the note, and plaintiff declined to take the instrument and surrender the note, although plaintiff had agreed to send for the instrument, and remove the same when requested so to do; that the original agreement of bailment is still in possession of plaintiff, who assumes to own the instrument by virtue thereof.