Muir v. Shinn
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 47, Nov. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 238, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. The question raised by this appeal is fully disclosed by a copy of the statement of claim and affidavit of defense which •are herein set out. “ STATEMENT.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 47, Nov. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 238, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. The question raised by this appeal is fully disclosed by a copy of the statement of claim and affidavit of defense which •are herein set out. “ STATEMENT. “In the early part of January, A. D. 1893, plaintiff and defendant became associated in and carried on business as a partnership in the City of Philadelphia, for the handling and sale of a mineral…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Reeder, J.,
When this case was called for argument, the appellee not being present, it was considered upon the written and oral argument of the appellant. When our attention was called to the fact that the time fixed for the argument was a mistake and the absence of the appellee was through no error or fault of his, a reargument was ordered and at the reargument both sides were represented and heard. It appears upon an examination of the case that the amount claimed by the plaintiff in his affidavit of claim was $100; to part of this claim ($7.74) the affidavit of defense is full and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Reilly v. DalySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ganor v. HinrichsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Miller v. Iron City Mutual Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Stuckert v. WedgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911