De Morat v. Falkenhagen
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 73, Jan. T., 1892, by defendant, Josephine Falkenhagen, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1891, No. 750, in favor of Oliver B. De Morat, plaintiff, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit to recover one month’s rent. The plaintiff’s statement claimed to recover of the defendant one month’s rent for premises demised under a lease under seal, of which a copy was annexed to the statement.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 73, Jan. T., 1892, by defendant, Josephine Falkenhagen, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1891, No. 750, in favor of Oliver B. De Morat, plaintiff, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit to recover one month’s rent. The plaintiff’s statement claimed to recover of the defendant one month’s rent for premises demised under a lease under seal, of which a copy was annexed to the statement. The affidavit of defence, of which the material portions are given in the opinion of the Supreme Court, alleged a surrender by lessee and an acceptance by…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
The appellant does allege in her affidavit of defence, positively, “ that she surrendered possession of the demised prem*394ises to P. H. Schaeffer, the agent for the plaintiff, on the 31st day of January, A. D. 1891, and possession thereof was accepted by him.” Of eourse, as this question arises upon an affidavit of defence, the absolute verity of the allegation must be assumed for present purposes, and we must, therefore, assume that P. H. Schaeffer was the duly authorized agent of the plaintiff, competent to act with reference "to this subject. In Auer v. Penn, 99…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Auer v. PennSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Teller v. BoyleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by2 opinions
- Reeves v. McComeskeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Boswell v. ChalmersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920