Case Name: Peter Adams Paper Company v. Cassard, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1904-03-07
Citations: 208 Pa. 267
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 185
Parties: Peter Adams Paper Company v. Cassard, Appellant.
Judges: Before Mitchell, C. J., Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Thompson, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 208
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
Peter Adams Paper Company v. Cassard, Appellant.
Httsband and wife — Principal and surety — Conflict of laws — Affidavit of defense.
In an action against a married woman as surety for her husband, where the statement of claim avers that the contract was made in another state, and that by the laws of that state such contract is valid, and this is not denied in the affidavit of defense, judgment will be entered for the plaintiff.
Argued Jan. 6, 1904.
Appeal, No. 185, Jan. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., March T., 1902, No. 3505, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Peter Adams Paper Company v. Linda R. Cassard.
Before Mitchell, C. J., Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Thompson, JJ.
Affirmed.
Assumpsit against a married woman on a contract of surety-ship for her husband.
The statement of claim set forth that the contract was made in the state of New York, and “that under the law of the state of New York, a married woman could at the time the contract of suretyship sued on was made, and still can, become surety for her husband.” This averment was not denied in the affidavit of defense.
The court made absolute the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Mrror assigned was the order of the court.
Franklin Swayne, for appellant.
Humbert B. Powell, with him Charles F. iStilz, for appellee.
March 7, 1904:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
When this case was here before, 206 Pa. 179, the judgment had to be reversed because it appeared that the contract was by a married woman as surety for her husband. Such contract being beyond her powers in this state, and there being no evidence as to the law of New York where the contract was made, the presumption was that the law was the same there. This presumption has now been overcome by an averment in the amended statement that the contract was valid by the law of New York. This not being denied in the affidavit of defense must be accepted as established.
Judgment affirmed.