Zenatello v. Hammerstein
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 247, Jan. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June Term, 1910, No. 176, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Giovanni Zenatello v. Oscar Hammerstein. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in an action of assumpsit. Before Magill, J. The averments of the statement and affidavit of defense are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 247, Jan. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June Term, 1910, No. 176, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Giovanni Zenatello v. Oscar Hammerstein. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in an action of assumpsit. Before Magill, J. The averments of the statement and affidavit of defense are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
We do not agree with the learned court below that the affidavit sets up a prima facie defense in averring that by virtue of certain acts of assembly of the state of New York and their construction by the courts of that state the contract of the parties “was unlawful and void in that it was an agreement to perform in the state of New York any opera, or any parts of opera, or other dramatic performance, upon the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, in violation of said statutes.” A copy of the contract on which the suit was brought is attached to and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Shubert Theatrical Co. v. RathCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Navarro Corp. v. Pittsburgh School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- State Line & Sullivan R. R. v. Lehigh Valley R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923