Fischer v. Dalmas
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 325, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1894, No. 662, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Bulé for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 325, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1894, No. 662, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Bulé for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The affidavit of defense was as follows : Louis Dalmas being duly sworn according to law doth depose and say, that he hath a just, true and legal defense to all of the plaintiff’s claim in the above stated case, excepting the sum of eighty-two dollars and fifty-four cents ($82.54), the amount of one of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,
We are not convinced that the learned court erred in refusing to enter judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Inasmuch as the case goes back for a jury trial, it is neither necessary nor desirable to discuss the questions presented by the affidavit of defense. If the plaintiff had been disposed to waive his right of appeal to this court and proceed to trial, he might have had his-case finally disposed of long ago.
Appeal dismissed, at plaintiff’s costs, without prejudice, etc.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Gulf States Finance Corp. v. Airline Auto Sales Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1965
- Appleby v. BarrettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Carrara Paint Agency Co. v. NaylorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Gulf States Finance Corp. v. Airline Auto Sales Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1965