Legal Opinion

General Electric Co. v. Camden Iron Works

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 24, 1913No. Appeal, No. 313PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal, No. 313, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1911, No. 3152, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense as to a portion of plaintiff’s claim in case of General Electric Company v. Camden Iron Works. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 313, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1911, No. 3152, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense as to a portion of plaintiff’s claim in case of General Electric Company v. Camden Iron Works. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The following opinion was filed by the court: This is a rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. The claim of the plaintiff company is to recover from the defendant company the…

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We are not convinced that there was error in making absolute the rule for judgment for the amount as to which the affidavit of defense was insufficient and the order is affirmed.

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Eidemiller v. Keystone Coal & Coke Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County1930
  2. First National Bank v. Cawley, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County1933
  3. Stitzel v. FredericiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API