Speier v. Locust Laundry, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 167, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1912, No. 4,952, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Herman Speier v. Locust Laundry. Assumpsit for wages. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court made absolute rule for iudgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 167, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1912, No. 4,952, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Herman Speier v. Locust Laundry. Assumpsit for wages. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court made absolute rule for iudgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J,
The appellant has assigned for error the entry of judgment against him for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, and also the discharge of his rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened. The petition for the rule set up no defense to the action which was not available to the defendant when he filed his affidavit of defense, and alleged no sufficient reason for not setting forth his entire defense therein. Therefore, if the affidavit of defense was insufficient to prevent judgment, the defendant was not in position to demand that the judgment be opened,,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bendernagle v. CocksNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Stradley v. Bath Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Buck v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Logan v. CaffreySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Hill v. JoySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Davis Cookie Co., Inc. v. WasleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Feather v. HusteadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Byren & Weil, Inc. v. French & Keeley, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Speier v. Locust LaundrySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Ambrose v. Western Maryland Railway Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County1947
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.