Gittings v. Loper

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Gittings v. Loper

84 F. 102, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2922

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 27, 1897

DocketNo. 5

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 F. 102 (Gittings v. Loper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gittings v. Loper, 84 F. 102, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2922 (circtedpa 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

If this affidavit shall be supported by evidence, the burden will be shifted to the plaintiffs to establish that they took the'paper in suit without notice of the fraud alleged, before maturity, and for value. Investment Co. v. Russel, 148 Pa. St. 496, 24 Atl. 59; Simons v. Fisher, 17 U. S. App. 1, 5 C. C. A. 311, and 55 Fed. 905. This burden cannot be evaded by the averment that the plaintiffs purchased the drafts “prior to the date of the payment thereof, and for a valuable consideration,- without notice.” It is not a legitimate function of a statement of claim to reply to an anticipated affirmative defense, and it is not incumbent upon a defendant to rejoin to any such irregular and premature replication. If this were not so, a plaintiff might defeat such a defense as is interposed here, by merely alleging the existence of the facts necessary .to avoid it, and so escape from the requirement that,he shall overcome it, if proved, by exculpatory evidence. If the plaintiffs are bona fide holders, they can readily show it; but the defendant may not have knowledge, or be informed, upon the subject, and to require him to make affidavit respecting it would be neither reasonable nor fair. The rule for judgment is discharged.

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

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

If this affidavit shall be supported by evidence, the burden will be shifted to the plaintiffs to establish that they took the'paper in suit without notice of the fraud alleged, before maturity, and for value. Investment Co. v. Russel, 148 Pa. St. 496, 24 Atl. 59; Simons v. Fisher, 17 U. S. App. 1, 5 C. C. A. 311, and 55 Fed. 905. This burden cannot be evaded by the averment that the plaintiffs purchased the drafts “prior to the date of the payment thereof, and for a valuable consideration,- without notice.” It is not a legitimate function of a statement of claim to reply to an anticipated affirmative defense, and it is not incumbent upon a defendant to rejoin to any such irregular and premature replication. If this were not so, a plaintiff might defeat such a defense as is interposed here, by merely alleging the existence of the facts necessary .to avoid it, and so escape from the requirement that,he shall overcome it, if proved, by exculpatory evidence. If the plaintiffs are bona fide holders, they can readily show it; but the defendant may not have knowledge, or be informed, upon the subject, and to require him to make affidavit respecting it would be neither reasonable nor fair. The rule for judgment is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 F. 102, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gittings-v-loper-circtedpa-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack