Legal Opinion

Jameson v. Jameson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 14, 1922No. Appeal, No. 166PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

Tbe seventeen assignments of error present but two questions. Tbe first is whether plaintiff put before the jury in a proper way facts averred in the statement1 of claim and not denied in the affidavit of defense. We are of opinion that counsel for plaintiff substantially complied with the rule as recently stated by the Chief Justice in Buehler v. U. S. Fashion Plate Co., 269 Pa. 428, and followed in Farbo v. Caskey, 272 Pa. 573. As there pointed out, one of the three ways of proving facts so averred is, “By offering in evidence specific parts of the statement of claim,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Buehler v. United States Fashion Plate Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Farbo v. CaskeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. General Equipment Manufacturers v. Westfield InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Poole Engineering & MacHine Co. v. Jeddo-Highland Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  3. Clark v. ClarkPennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API