Case Name: Central Trust and Saving Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Benjamin Klebanoff and Abraham Klebanoff
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1925-02-28
Citations: 85 Pa. Super. 427
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 260
Parties: Central Trust and Saving Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Benjamin Klebanoff and Abraham Klebanoff.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 427–434

Head Matter:
Central Trust and Saving Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Benjamin Klebanoff and Abraham Klebanoff.
Argued November 21,1924.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
February 28, 1925 :
F. B. Hall, and with him Levi and Mandel, for appellant.
The affidavit of defense was insufficient: American Baptist Publication Society v. Erb, 44 Leg. Intel., p. 144; Rodgers v. Donovan, 36 Leg. Intel. 156; Heydt v. Frey, 10 Salder, 84 W. N. C. 265; Maftzger v. Buser, 106 Kan. 115,186 Pac; 997; Central Sav. Bank v. O’Connor, 132 Mich. 578, 102 Am. St. Rep. 433, 94 N: W. 11; Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159, 59 N. W. 995.
Martin Feldman, for appellee.
The note was not used in accordance with the authority given: Negotiable Instrument Act, see 8 Corpus Juris, page 191; Hartington National Bank v. Wiebelhams, 128 N. W. 659; Manusier v. Wright, 158 Ill. App. (1910) ; Vander Ploog v. Van Zurck, 135 Iowa 350; Boston Steel Co. v. Stoner, 183 Mass. 140; Rodgers v. Baker, Í22 N. Y. Sup. 91; Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wal. 447 (U. S. Sup. Ct. 1886).

Opinion:
Pee Curiam,
This appeal from the refusaí of judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is affirmed on the opinion of the learned court below.