Cook v. Murphy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 8, Jan. T., 1892, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Pbila. Co., Sept. T., 1890, M. L. D., discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in sci. fa. sur. mechanics’ claim.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 8, Jan. T., 1892, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Pbila. Co., Sept. T., 1890, M. L. D., discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in sci. fa. sur. mechanics’ claim. Plaintiffs filed a claim in due form, as sub-contractors, for labor and material in painting and glazing, furnished from Jan. 7 to May 30, 1890. To a sci. fa. against Murphy as owner and Christy as contractor, Murphy filed an affidavit of defence alleging that the claim in suit was contracted for by Christy in the fulfilment of contracts made with deponent as owner Dec. 13, 1889, and April…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Sterrett,
The only question presented by this record is whether the court erred in refusing to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. That question, we think, is entitled to an affirmative answer.
If this were a scire facias on a claim filed by Christy, the principal contractor, for work and labor done and materials furnished by himself under his contracts with the owner of the building, averments of default and consequent damage, such as are contained in this affidavit of defence, would be sufficient to prevent judgment; but the plaintiffs were…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schroeder v. GallandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nice v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Smith v. LevickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- East Stroudsburg Lumber Co. v. GillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898