Leiby v. Lutz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 24, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1889, No. 173, discharging rule for judgment for want of,a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of William N. Leiby v. James L. Lutz and Frank Schwartz, trading as Lutz & Schwartz. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Bechtel, J. • The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This action was brought in 1889 for work alleged to have been done by the plaintiff for the defendants between December, 1883, and September, 1884. After waiting for more than four years to bring this suit, he waited until November 2,1908, to file his statement. More than twenty-four years after the last work is alleged to have been done the plaintiff for the first time filed his claim and called upon the defendants to file an affidavit of defense. In it there is an averment by Schwartz that he has been informed and believes that within six months after the work was done Leiby “was…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Elliott v. McGounSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Beck v. SchekterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Central Trust & Savings Co. v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- J. B. Colt Co. v. DombroweskySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929