Legal Opinion

Wetter v. Smith

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Decided February 14, 1924Published

1Opinion of the Court

Shoemaker, P. J.,

— This was an action in trespass to recover for damages to an automobile, caused by negligence.

By the fourth paragraph of the statement of claim it was averred: “That said automobile, belonging to the above named defendant, at said time and place, was being operated with the knowledge, consent, approval and sanction of the above-named defendant, by his wife.” No affidavit of defence was filed.

The 13th section of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, provides: “In actions of trespass, the averments, in the statement, of the person by whom the act was committed, the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Markle v. PerotSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Gustine v. WestenbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  3. Hinski v. SteinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
  4. French v. SpencerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API