Jones v. Carrigan
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 269, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from order of C. P., No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1914, No. 2,953, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of William H. Jones, Trustee, v. Thomas J. Carrigan, trading as The Somer Salt Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 269, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from order of C. P., No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1914, No. 2,953, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of William H. Jones, Trustee, v. Thomas J. Carrigan, trading as The Somer Salt Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
The plaintiff brought suit to recover a balance alleged to he due on three shipments of salt, as specified in an exhibit attached to his statement. On a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense the court entered a judgment for the amount claimed to be due. In the original and supplemental affidavit of defense, which are to be taken together, there was a distinct and specific denial of the delivery of the ninety tons of salt, and an admission of delivery and acceptance of eighty-five tons only. The other averment may be considered as not conclusive,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Armstrong v. DescalziSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Noble v. ErwinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912