Bradly v. Potts
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 295, Jan. T., 1893, by-plaintiff, William Bradly, to use of Joseph Costello, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1892, No. 385, making absolute rule for more specific statement in favor of defendant, Hiram Potts. Assumpsit for breach of contract to sell laud.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 295, Jan. T., 1893, by-plaintiff, William Bradly, to use of Joseph Costello, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1892, No. 385, making absolute rule for more specific statement in favor of defendant, Hiram Potts. Assumpsit for breach of contract to sell laud. Plaintiff’s statement was as follows: “ 1. The plaintiff avers that the defendant, Hiram Potts, on the twenty-fourth day of July, A. D. 1891, entered into a certain written agreement with the plaintiff, of which a full and correct copy is as follows : “ ‘ Tliis agreement, made the 25th day of July a. d. one…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
This order must be reversed as an irregular and unauthorized mode of reaching a result different from what it professes to do. In terms it is a rule absolute for a more specific statement. Such a ruLe is apparently sanctioned by the rules of the court below, and may have its usefulness in its proper province, since wjhat would have been a bill of particulars under the common counts may now, under the procedure act of 1887, be incorporated in the statement, and may lack precision of names, dates, amounts, etc., as the bill of particulars might in the old…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Local No. 163, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Riling v. IdellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Lindsley v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Slother v. JaffeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.