Vincent v. Jenkins
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 21, March T.; 1915, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., January T., 1914, No. 554, discharging alias rule to show cause why judgment shall not be entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Charles W. Vincent v. John E. Jenkins. Assumpsit for labor and for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 21, March T.; 1915, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., January T., 1914, No. 554, discharging alias rule to show cause why judgment shall not be entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Charles W. Vincent v. John E. Jenkins. Assumpsit for labor and for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The affidavit of defense was as follows: John E. Jenkins, being duly sworn saith that he hath a full defense to the whole of the plaintiff’s claim in the above case, in manner and form as the same is set…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kephart, J.,
The question of procedure raised in this appeal appears to be definitely settled. It has been held that a second rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense may be obtained after defects in the original statement'have been cured by amendment. The fact that the affidavit of defense was sufficient to prevent judgment on the record as it stood when the affidavit was filed, will not prevent summary judgment being entered on a second or third rule after the defective or obscure record is amended. The defendant should have notice of the amendment and a copy…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commonwealth ex rel. John T. Baldwin & Co. v. YeisleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Wetherill v. StillmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Laird v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Jones v. GordonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- McClurg v. FuterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913