Legal Opinion

Andrews v. Blue Ridge Packing Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 25, 1903No. Appeal, No. 327PublishedCited by 29 opinions

Appeal, No. 327, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Luzerne Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 365, discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense in case of B. W. Andrews and George M. Randall, trading as B. W. Andrews & Company v. Blue Ridge Packing Company. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 327, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Luzerne Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 365, discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense in case of B. W. Andrews and George M. Randall, trading as B. W. Andrews & Company v. Blue Ridge Packing Company. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. The material averments of the affidavit of defense are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Errors assigned were in discharging rule for judgment, and in allowing a second supplemental affidavit of defense…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mitchell,

An affidavit of defense should set forth fully and fairly, facts sufficient to show prima facie, a good defense, and if it fails to do so, either from omission of essential facts, or manifest evasiveness in the mode of statement, it will be insufficient to prevent judgment. But if not deficient in either o|. these respects, and on its face fairly setting forth a prima facie defense, it is not to be subjected to close technical examination as if it was a special plea demurred to. Its office is to prevent a summary judgment and for that purpose a showing of a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Newbold v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Vanatta v. AndersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1811
  3. Wolf v. JacobsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  4. Stedman v. PoterieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Michelin Tire Co. v. SchulzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  2. Faux v. FitlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  3. Lindsay v. DuttonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  4. Wood v. KerkeslagerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  5. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. ToplissSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915

24 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