First Nat. Bk. of York v. Bair

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

First Nat. Bk. of York v. Bair

173 A. 329, 315 Pa. 463, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 650

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 22, 1934

DocketAppeal, 26

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 173 A. 329 (First Nat. Bk. of York v. Bair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First Nat. Bk. of York v. Bair, 173 A. 329, 315 Pa. 463, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 650 (Pa. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff appeals from refusal of its motion for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The suit was in assumpsit to recover against the guarantors of notes which had been discounted by plaintiff bank and subsequently dishonored at maturity. The affidavit of defense admits the guaranty but avers it was executed by defendants at the instance and request of plaintiff. Defendants admit liability as to some of the notes but deny responsibility as to others on the ground the names of the makers thereon were forged. Although this latter circumstance would not in itself relieve the guarantors of their obligation — see 12 R. C. L. 1073 — the court below held that “the pleadings suggest the possible existence of other facts which ought to be submitted to a jury,” and in this conclusion we concur.

This appeal falls within our oft-repeated rule that summary judgment will only be entered in cases which are clear and free from doubt. We will not disturb the refusal to enter judgment where the pleadings indicate the issue demands a broad inquiry into the facts or a trial upon the merits. Rodgers v. Mann, 307 Pa. 452; Brannen v. Granite-Silberstein B. & L. Assn., 310 Pa. 278.

The order of the court below is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff appeals from refusal of its motion for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The suit was in assumpsit to recover against the guarantors of notes which had been discounted by plaintiff bank and subsequently dishonored at maturity. The affidavit of defense admits the guaranty but avers it was executed by defendants at the instance and request of plaintiff. Defendants admit liability as to some of the notes but deny responsibility as to others on the ground the names of the makers thereon were forged. Although this latter circumstance would not in itself relieve the guarantors of their obligation — see 12 R. C. L. 1073 — the court below held that “the pleadings suggest the possible existence of other facts which ought to be submitted to a jury,” and in this conclusion we concur.

This appeal falls within our oft-repeated rule that summary judgment will only be entered in cases which are clear and free from doubt. We will not disturb the refusal to enter judgment where the pleadings indicate the issue demands a broad inquiry into the facts or a trial upon the merits. Rodgers v. Mann, 307 Pa. 452; Brannen v. Granite-Silberstein B. & L. Assn., 310 Pa. 278.

The order of the court below is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A. 329, 315 Pa. 463, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-nat-bk-of-york-v-bair-pa-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack