Taber v. Olmsted
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 358, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiffs, Charles Taber & Co., from order of C. P. Crawford Co., May T., 1891, No. 4T, discharging rule for judgment against defendant, Joseph B. Olmsted. Assumpsit. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence, etc.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 358, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiffs, Charles Taber & Co., from order of C. P. Crawford Co., May T., 1891, No. 4T, discharging rule for judgment against defendant, Joseph B. Olmsted. Assumpsit. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence, etc. The “ abstract of proceedings ” showed the following entries: April 23, 1891, the plaintiffs move for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, and for leave to enter judgment and issue fi. fa. for the amount of plaintiffs’ claim as to which no' defence is made. Same day rule to show cause granted why judgment…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McCollum,
In this case the defendant admitted and tendered judgment for two thirds of the plaintiffs’ claim, and filed an affidavit of defence to the balance of it. Thereupon the plaintiffs moved for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, and for leave to enter judgment and issue fi. fa. for the amount admitted to be due. Both matters were included in one motion, and by an order indorsed thereon the court granted a rule to *354show cause'why judgment should not be entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, and allowed judgment to be entered for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stedman v. PoterieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- City of New Castle v. New Castle Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Thompson v. DonaldsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910