Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Delaware Produce Exchange, Inc.

Superior Court of Delaware

Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Delaware Produce Exchange, Inc.

80 A. 244, 25 Del. 336, 2 Boyce 336, 1911 Del. LEXIS 44

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedMarch 17, 1911

DocketNo. 48

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 A. 244 (Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Delaware Produce Exchange, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Delaware Produce Exchange, Inc., 80 A. 244, 25 Del. 336, 2 Boyce 336, 1911 Del. LEXIS 44 (Del. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Pennewill, C. J.

delivering the opinion of the court:

The court are quite clear about this matter. It is perfectly manifest that if the corporate name of the plaintiff is not considered, the copy of the book account filed in this action is entirely unintelligible and insufficient to disclose the natuie of the plaintiff’s demand. The only question, therefore, before us is, if the copy of the book account filed is clearly insufficient to disclose the nature of the account sued upon for which recovery is sought, whether such insufficiency can be supplied by inference to be drawn from the corporate name of the plaintiff and the business in which it is apparently engaged. We think not. Therefore, we order that the motion for judgment on affidavit of demand be refused.

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

Pennewill, C. J.

delivering the opinion of the court:

The court are quite clear about this matter. It is perfectly manifest that if the corporate name of the plaintiff is not considered, the copy of the book account filed in this action is entirely unintelligible and insufficient to disclose the natuie of the plaintiff’s demand. The only question, therefore, before us is, if the copy of the book account filed is clearly insufficient to disclose the nature of the account sued upon for which recovery is sought, whether such insufficiency can be supplied by inference to be drawn from the corporate name of the plaintiff and the business in which it is apparently engaged. We think not. Therefore, we order that the motion for judgment on affidavit of demand be refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A. 244, 25 Del. 336, 2 Boyce 336, 1911 Del. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/postal-telegraph-cable-co-v-delaware-produce-exchange-inc-delsuperct-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack