Ferree v. Young
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 156, Oct. T., 1897, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1897, No. 686, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The plaintiff claimed on a contract for advertising in street cars the sum of $112.50. The court-below discharged the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, filing no opinion. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 156, Oct. T., 1897, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1897, No. 686, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The plaintiff claimed on a contract for advertising in street cars the sum of $112.50. The court-below discharged the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, filing no opinion. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was to the order of the court discharging the rule.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith J.,. The plaintiff appeals from the decree of the court below discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. This court has followed the rule of the Supreme Court in this class of appeals: “ It must be a very plain case of error in law, if we sustain appeals in such cases as this, from the decree of the common pleas discharging the rule: ” Ætna Ins. Co. v. Confer, 158 Pa. 598. The affidavit of defense avers, *309that the plaintiff’s agent procured the defendant to advertise, on the representation that the plaintiff had room in the street cars for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ætna Ins. v. ConferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Shea v. WellsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Arnold v. StonerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901