Koolbergen v. Yates
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 264, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. Phila. Co., March T., 1912, No. 2,037, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Harry Van Koolbergen and Gilbert Sliedrecht, trading as Koolbergen & Sliedrecht, v. Walter N. Yates and Thaddeus N. Yates, trading as Thaddeus N. Yates & Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 264, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. Phila. Co., March T., 1912, No. 2,037, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Harry Van Koolbergen and Gilbert Sliedrecht, trading as Koolbergen & Sliedrecht, v. Walter N. Yates and Thaddeus N. Yates, trading as Thaddeus N. Yates & Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The plaintiffs are nurserymen and brought this action to recover the prices of certain shrubs and plants alleged in the statement to have been sold and delivered to the defendants, upon an express contract to pay for them at the prices stated. The defendants filed an affidavit of defense as to a part of the claim, which the court below held to be insufficient and made absolute a rule for judgment for the whole amount of plaintiffs’ demand. The defendants appeal from that order.
*408The items in dispute were set forth in plaintiffs’ statement as follows, viz.: “500 Box Bush, 1…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tete Bros. v. EshlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Krauskopf v. Pennypack Yarn Finishing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904