Legal Opinion

Seaman v. Tamaqua National Bank

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 22, 1929No. Appeal, 183PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

In this action of assumpsit, judgment was entered on a verdict for plaintiff and defendant has appealed.

Plaintiff proved his case by putting in evidence certain averments of the statement of claim and corresponding parts of his opponent’s affidavit of defense, which either failed to deny plaintiff’s averments or did it in so general and evasive a manner as to be equivalent, in law, to no denial. Such a method of proof is legitimate when the pleadings warrant it: Beuhler v. U. S. Fashion Plate Co., 269 Pa. 428, 432, 433; Franklin Sugar Ref. Co. v. Hanscom Bros., 273 Pa. 98, 102;…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Buehler v. United States Fashion Plate Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Hanscom Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  3. Irwin v. WeikelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Meguire v. GallagherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  5. Weaver v. ShimerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Commonwealth v. CauffielSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API