This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1852 Excerpt: ...or to their said assignees, in large sums of money, to wit, sums exceeding in the aggregate one million of dollars. SAMUEL RANDALL. Sworn and subscribed before me this 22d day of October, 1853. S. H. Simmons, Alderman. Suggestion of Defence, filed October 22d, 1853. On behalf of the defendants it is suggested, that the papers filed purporting to be " a copy of the instrument of writing and averments on which this suit is brought," are not such as would entitle plaintiff to a judgment for want of an affidavit of defence, because 1st. There is no copy filed of an instrument of writing for the payment of money, within the meaning of the Acts of Assembly, authorizing this Court to grant judgment as aforesaid. 2d. There is no distinction in the papers filed, between what purports to be copies of original papers and what are only abstracts, statements, or averments by the plaintiff or his counsel, and the papers purporting to be copies of original papers, apart from the statements or averments aforesaid, do not show any cause of action. 3d. The plaintiff has filed no copy of the obligations of the Morris Canal and Banking Company in the said paper A, and in his averments mentioned, nor is it averred that any such obligations are held by either the legal or equitable plaintiffs. 4th. No copies of the instruments referred to in paper D have been filed. f)th. The claim is for a proportionate part of one whole indivisible cause of action, and without clearly showing the amount of the proportion claimed. 6th. The papers filed do not show any cause of action by phintiff against such Bank. JNO. FALLON, GEO. M. DALLAS, J. RANDALL. OMnhrr 2l#, 1853. In the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia, of the Term of September, 1853. No. 4-J2. City and ...