Black v. Isaacman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 148, Oct. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1909, No. 3,639, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Morris Black v. Louis Isaacman. Assumpsit for money loaned. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
To entitle a plaintiff to judgment for want of an affidavit of defense, or for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, the statement of his demand, under the Act of May 25, 1887, P. L. 271, must set forth in clear and concise terms a good cause of action, by which is meant such averments of fact as, if not controverted, would entitle him to a verdict for the amount of his claim: Chestnut Street Nat. Bank v. Ellis, 161 Pa. 241; Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Jermon, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 171; Tourison v. Engard, 30 Pa. Superior Ct. 179; Rosenblum v. Stolzenberg, 36 Pa. Superior Ct. 644.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chestnut Street National Bank v. EllisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Tourison v. EngardSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Bill Posting Sign Co. v. JermonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Rosenblum v. StolzenbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
3Cited by2 opinions
- Carl v. Grand Union Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Commonwealth v. AckerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913