Emig v. Spatz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 27, July. T., 1893, by plaintiffs, Clayton E. Emig & Co., from order of C. P.York Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 39, discharging rule for judgment against defendants, Jacob F. Spatz et al. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, in assumpsit on contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 27, July. T., 1893, by plaintiffs, Clayton E. Emig & Co., from order of C. P.York Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 39, discharging rule for judgment against defendants, Jacob F. Spatz et al. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, in assumpsit on contract. Plaintiffs in their statement claimed to recover $500 on a contract “ to drill wells for the purpose of reservoir for the party of the second part at Dallastown, Co. of York, State of Penna., wherever desired. The party of the first part agrees said wells to furnish 300 barrels, 32 gals, per bbls. per day of 24…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
The only assignment of error is the refusal of the court to enter judgment against defendants for want of sufficient affidavit of defence.
We have examined the statement of claim, based upon the written contract between plaintiffs and defendants, wherein the former agree to drill for the latter certain wells for the purpose of supplying reservoirs, etc., and also the original and supplemental affidavits of defence thereto, and are not by any means convinced that there was any error in denying plaintiffs’ motion for judgment. The appeal is therefore dismissed at the costs of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- O'Malley v. Pennacchioli, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1926
- Swavely v. EnoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913