Everett Consolidated Shingle Co. v. McLaughlin
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 37, April T., 1911, by defendant, from order of C. P. Clarion Co., Dec. T., 1909, No. 136, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of The Everett Consolidated Shingle Co. v. J. M. McLaughlin & Co. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 37, April T., 1911, by defendant, from order of C. P. Clarion Co., Dec. T., 1909, No. 136, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of The Everett Consolidated Shingle Co. v. J. M. McLaughlin & Co. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The affidavit of defense was as follows: That affiant avers that the shingles furnished and delivered to defendants as averred in plaintiff’s statement, were not the kind ordered. The item 206-1-4 M. shingles were not extra clear red…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
Judgment was entered in the court below for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
The only assignment of error is that the order of the court entering judgment was erroneous.
The defendants ordered from the plaintiff shingles of a certain kind. The statement sets forth the shipment of shingles of the kind ordered, as we understand it. At all events, the affidavit of defense distinctly alleges that the shingles received were not of the kind ordered nor of the kind charged in the statement, but were of an inferior quality, that the defendants notified the plaintiff and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kaufman & Co. v. Cooper Iron Mining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Bacon v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Wilson v. BellesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Newton Rubber Works v. KahnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898