Diehl Manufacturing Co. v. Philadelphia Electric Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 201, Oct. T., 1911, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1910, No. 1,558, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Diehl Manufacturing Company v. The Philadelphia Electric Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
In Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Iron Co., 46 Pa. Superior Ct. 164, our Brother Morrison pointed out the attitude of our appellate courts towards an appeal taken by a plaintiff, under the Act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64, from an order or decree discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Where in such cases the appeal is dismissed, it ought not to be expected that the court would attempt to anticipate or prejudge the precise questions that might thereafter be presented by the record in case of another appeal after final judgment…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gandy v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Thomas & Sons v. Loose, Seaman & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Clinch Valley Coal & Iron Co. ex rel. Grove v. WillingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Wheatley v. NiedichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Tacony Iron Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pittsburgh-Texas Gas & Oil Co. v. AdamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Gelber v. Western National BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913