Wanner v. Emanuel's Church of Evangelical Ass'n
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Wanner v. Emanuel's Church of Evangelical Ass'n, 174 Pa. 466 (Pa. 1896)
34 A. 188; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 907
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell
Wanner v. Emanuel's Church of Evangelical Ass'n
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff’s statement did allege that the money for which the notes in suit were given was lent to the defendant corporation, and that the persons signing were trustees of the defendant and were duly authorized to execute and deliver the notes in question. These averments are not denied in the affidavit of defense. The matters which are there averred we do not regard as a defense to these notes. We are satisfied with the reasoning and authorities expressed and cited in the opinion of the learned court below, and that the conclusion reached was correct.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Hettie Wanner v. The Emanuel's Church of The Evangelical Association, of Fleetwood, Pa.
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Corporation — Defacto officer — Promissory notes. Promissory notes signed by de facto officers of a corporation are binding upon the corporation. In an action against a corporation, upon promissory notes appearing upon their faces to be the individual notes of the persons signing them, where the plaintiff’s statement alleges that the money for which the notes were given was lent to the corporation, and the pei'sons signing were trustees of the defendant, and were duly authorized to execute and deliver the notes in question, the suit can be maintained against the corporation if the allegations be proved; and an averment in an affidavit of defense that the notes in suit appear to be upon their faces the individual notes of the makers thereof, and that the corporation cannot be held upon them, is not a denial of the averments of the statement, and is insufficient to prevent judgment. Affidavit of defense — Practice, C. P. — Examination of boohs. An allegation in an affidavit of defense that the defendant had been refused permission to examine certain books for the purpose of ascertaining the merits of plaintiff’s claim is unavailing to prevent judgment. In such a case the proper course for the defendant is to show his inability to make an affidavit of defense without such inspection, and to ask for a suspension of the rule for judgment until an opportunity properly to inform himself is afforded.