Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Lykens Mercantile Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Simpson,
This appeal is from a judgment in favor of defendant upon points of law raised in its affidavit of defense. Possibly it would not have been entered, if attention had been called to what we said in Rhodes v. Terheyden, 272 Pa. 397, 401, as follows: “If appellee was of opinion the averments of the statement did not ‘conform to the provisions’ of the Practice Act of May 14,1915, P. L. 483, he should have moved to strike it off, as provided by section 21. If he believed it did ‘conform to the provisions’ of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rhodes v. TerheydenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- King Et Al., Appellants, v. BrillhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Moore v. Luzerne CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. MuckleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Commonwealth Finance Corp. v. FerreroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
3Cited by33 opinions
- Gray v. Phila. & Reading Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Rudman Et Ux. v. City of ScrantonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Long v. McAllisterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Am. Products Co. v. Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Parish Mfg. Corp. v. Martin-Parry Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.