Carl Barckhoff Church Organ Co. v. Ecker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 35, Oct. T., 1897, by H. P. Ecker & Co., from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1895, No. 574, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a book account. Before McClung, J. , The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 35, Oct. T., 1897, by H. P. Ecker & Co., from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1895, No. 574, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a book account. Before McClung, J. , The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. JErrors assigned were to various offers of evidence on the part of defendant, as to tbe allegations contained in the statement of set-off, none of which sets out the evidence in the manner provided by Rule XXIV of the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion p.y
Me. Chief Justice Sterrett,
Assuming for the present that the assignments of error are according to rule and founded on exceptions taken in the court below, this appeal involves the construction of Rule 8 of said court. See Carpet Co. v. Latimer, 165 Pa. 619.
As will appear by reference to the rule, supra, the first section thereof requires the plaintiff, in certain specified cases, to file with or before his declaration a specification of the items of his claim, together with a statement of the facts necessary to support it, verified by affidavit, to which the defendant shall,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- American Structural Steel Co. v. Annex Hotel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Elm City Lumber Co. v. HauptSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Jackson v. Blair, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1927
- Willock v. HamiltonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912