Jenkinson v. Hilands
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County
No. 125 October Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 64 March Term 1891, C. P. No. 1. Returnable to the first Monday of January, 1891, William Jenkinson brought assumpsit against Anna Hilands, filing a statement of claim to recover $122.16 upon an account for goods sold and delivered, a copy from the plaintiff’s books of original entry being attached.
Read the full summary
No. 125 October Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 64 March Term 1891, C. P. No. 1. Returnable to the first Monday of January, 1891, William Jenkinson brought assumpsit against Anna Hilands, filing a statement of claim to recover $122.16 upon an account for goods sold and delivered, a copy from the plaintiff’s books of original entry being attached. On December 27, 1890, the defendant filed an affidavit of defence averring, first, that, for the same cause of action the plaintiff had previously brought suit and recovered a judgment against the defendant before an alderman; that, on…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee. Curiam:
The affidavit of defence is clearly insufficient. The principal matter averred was a suit and judgment before an aider-man for the same cause of action. But that judgment was reversed upon a certiorari, and is no bar to the present proceedings. The only other material averment is that the goods charged to defendant were “ excessive in amount.” This is too vague. It impliedly admits that some goods were furnished, and if the amount charged was excessive, the defendant should have specified the excess, so that the plaintiff could have judgment for the amount admitted to be due.
Judgme…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. RosenbaumSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. StreepySupreme Court of Iowa · 1931
- Gausler v. BridgesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Fish v. BarrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903