Skip to main content
· 3/30/1891

Ludington v. North

Citations

  • 141 Pa. 184
  • 21 A. 517
  • 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1060

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action by the indoi’see of a negotiable note against the makers, an averment in an affidavit of defence that the plaintiff was not the bona fide holder of the note, but was suing to “ accommodate” the payees, and had so informed the defendants in writing, entitled the defendants to set up any defence they would have had in a suit on the note by the payees.</p> <p>2. An averment that the note was given in payment for pianos purchased under a contract by which the defendants were to be the exclusive sales-agents of the payees for the period of five years, and that by reason of a revocation of the agency, without cause, the defendants had been unable to dispose of the pianos, is sufficient to prevent a summary judgment.</p> <p>3. Though an affidavit of defence set out an erroneous measure of the damages to which the defendants allege they are entitled, yet the question to be determined on the motion is, not whether the defendants have adopted a correct measure of the damages, but whether they have stated facts from which a right to damages results.</p>

Judges: Clark, Collum, Green, Mitchell, Paxson, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.