Philadelphia Medical Publishing Co. v. Wolfenden

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia Medical Publishing Co. v. Wolfenden

86 A. 849, 239 Pa. 262, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 549

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 3, 1913

DocketAppeal, No. 171

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A. 849 (Philadelphia Medical Publishing Co. v. Wolfenden) 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

Philadelphia Medical Publishing Co. v. Wolfenden, 86 A. 849, 239 Pa. 262, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 549 (Pa. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The action was by a corporation, of which the defendant became an officer, to recover on an oral agreement alleged to have been made by him to subscribe for $5,000.00 of the stock of the corporation when a charter was obtained. It is averred in the affidavit of defense that the defendant’s agreement was to invest $1,000.00 in the stock of the corporation and that he never agreed to subscribe for a larger amount of stock. This denial went to the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, and if established by proof, would defeat a recovery. The issue raised was for the jury.

The order is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The action was by a corporation, of which the defendant became an officer, to recover on an oral agreement alleged to have been made by him to subscribe for $5,000.00 of the stock of the corporation when a charter was obtained. It is averred in the affidavit of defense that the defendant’s agreement was to invest $1,000.00 in the stock of the corporation and that he never agreed to subscribe for a larger amount of stock. This denial went to the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, and if established by proof, would defeat a recovery. The issue raised was for the jury.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A. 849, 239 Pa. 262, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philadelphia-medical-publishing-co-v-wolfenden-pa-1913.