Legal Opinion

Bartoe v. Guckert

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 30, 1893No. Appeal, No. 27PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal, No. 27, Oct. T., 1893, by defendants, William Guckert and John A. Steel, trading as Guckert & Steel, from order of C. P. Butler Co., June T., 1892, No. 33, entering judgment in favor of plaintiff, C. E. Bartoe, for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Buie for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in assumpsit for penalty under act of June 10,1881, for failing to plug abandoned oil well. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 27, Oct. T., 1893, by defendants, William Guckert and John A. Steel, trading as Guckert & Steel, from order of C. P. Butler Co., June T., 1892, No. 33, entering judgment in favor of plaintiff, C. E. Bartoe, for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Buie for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in assumpsit for penalty under act of June 10,1881, for failing to plug abandoned oil well. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Frror assigned was entry of judgment.

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

' This was an action to recover the penalty of $200 for not properly plugging an abandoned oil well, in violation of the provisions of the second section of the act of June 10, 1881, P. L. 110. A statement of the plaintiffs claim was filed, and the defendants filed an affidavit of defence and also a paper denying the right of the plaintiff to require an affidavit of defence, or to have a judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. The learned court below concluded that the defendants were not ‘obliged to file any affidavit of defence because the action was not an action…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hutchinson v. WoodwellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
  2. Gottman v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
  3. Barr & Son v. DuncanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
  4. Yates v. Borough of MeadvilleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Stanton v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  2. Commonwealth v. MilnorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  3. Stern v. LancasterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. Commonwealth ex rel. French v. FoleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  5. Joseph F. Schanne v. Bioren Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API