Legal Opinion

Metropolitan Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Browne

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County

Decided July 10, 1930No. 774Published

1Opinion of the Court

MaoDade, J.,

The plaintiff instituted a suit to recover the value of goods sold and delivered to the defendant. Objection by the defendant was made to the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff when the former entered a rule for a more specific statement. This was in accordance with the Practice Act of 1915, and properly so, for the proper method to attack a statement not sufficiently specific is to ask for a rule for a more specific statement: Heaton v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 98 Pa. Superior Ct. 162; King v. Brillhart, 271 Pa. 301. When the matter came up for argument upon the said rule,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. King Et Al., Appellants, v. BrillhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. LenowitzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  3. Bell Telephone Co. v. DeakyneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  4. Heaton v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API