Hollis v. Brown
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 129, Jan. T., 1894, by defendants, Susan S. Brown and Elizabeth H. Brown, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1893, No. 691, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence, in favor of plaintiff, Peter C. Hollis. Assumpsit for rent and damages.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 129, Jan. T., 1894, by defendants, Susan S. Brown and Elizabeth H. Brown, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1893, No. 691, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence, in favor of plaintiff, Peter C. Hollis. Assumpsit for rent and damages. Plaintiff’s statement is not printed in appellants’ paper-book, but it is stated in the history of the case that the action is for three months’ rent and for damages for repairs made necessary by defendants’ negligence. The lease, made part of the plaintiff’s statement, contained a covenant by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We are satisfied from an examination of the record that there was no error in making absolute the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assuming, as we must, for the purposes of this appeal, that all the averments contained in the affidavit of defence are true, there is nothing in them that amounts to a defence to the plaintiff’s case.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. PierceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Silverman v. BullockSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Cusick v. Woolworth, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1923