Huber v. Baum
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 24, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiffs, Helen Huber et al., executors of Anna C. Huber, deceased, from order of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia County, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence in an action against Geo. Baum et al. Assumpsit for rent. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court discharged a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 24, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiffs, Helen Huber et al., executors of Anna C. Huber, deceased, from order of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia County, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence in an action against Geo. Baum et al. Assumpsit for rent. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court discharged a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Errors assigned were, (1) order as above; (2) not entering judgment for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Paxson,
We think the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. The claim of the plaintiffs was for rent due under a lease under seal. The amount of the rent is not in controversy, but the defendants allege in their affidavit of defence that they had leased the premises for the purpose of a morocco manufactory and that the said building “ was totally unfit for the purpose for which the lessees rented tire same, and to which use and purpose the lease restricted them ; that it became untenantable and dangerous. That the lessees…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Peticolas v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1895
- Robinson v. HeverinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Silverman v. BullockSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Cusick v. Woolworth, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1923
- Jackson v. StewartSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906