Legal Opinion

Birdsall v. Wilbur

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 10, 1938No. Appeal, 24PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The question propounded in this appeal, whether, in pleading the statute of limitations in the affidavit of defense, defendant’s failure to caption the new matter as prescribed, and to move plaintiff to reply specifically to it, prevents the statute from being raised in the defense at the trial, has been fully answered by Isaac et al. v. Donegal and Conoy Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 301 Pa. 351, at 356. The statute of limitations must be specifically pleaded. It is not a matter of which the court will take judicial notice from the facts contained in the plaintiff’s statement of claim:…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Barclay v. BarclaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  2. Isaac v. Donegal & Conoy Mutual Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Carter v. VandegriftSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  4. Reading Co. v. E.J. Keller Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Quaker City Chocolate & Confectionery Co. v. Delhi-Warnock Building Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  2. Grazer v. Newman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County1950
  3. Johnson v. Shive, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County1949
  4. MacK AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  5. Reich v. Zeigler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1940

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

Powered by the Exa API