O'Hara v. Baum
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: No. 137, of October and November Term 1876. This was a scire facias upon a mortgage issued by A. E. Baum, to the use of S. P. Fulton, against Michael O’Hara and Frances A., his wife.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: No. 137, of October and November Term 1876. This was a scire facias upon a mortgage issued by A. E. Baum, to the use of S. P. Fulton, against Michael O’Hara and Frances A., his wife. Rule 5th of the court below is as follows :— “ Sect. 1. The plaintiff shall file, with or before his declaration, a specification of the items of his claim, and a statement of facts necessary to support it, verified by affidavit, to which the defendant shall, within the time hereinafter specified, file an answer, verified by affidavit, and such items…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sharswood
It is impossible, we think, to sustain the judgment below against Frances O’Hara. It was entered by the prothonotary upon the plaintiffs’ praecipe against her “ in default of notice of affidavit, specification and statement of defence.” It is not a judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, but under sections 3d and 4th of rule 5th of the court below. The affidavit of Mrs. O’Hara was not a specification of set-off and statement of defence, but a total denial of liability upon the mortgage sued upon. It was not a case, therefore, within that rule, as was decided by this court in…
2Cited by32 opinions
- Nixon v. NixonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp. v. PottsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Harr, SEC. of Bk. v. BernheimerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Miles v. LaytonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1937
- Rome Sales & Service Station v. FinchSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.