Yearsley v. Glaser
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 19, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of G. P. No. 5, Pbila. Co., June T., 1905, No. 2,323, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Thomas Yearsley v. Sigmund Glaser. Assumpsit for work and labor done and material furnished.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 19, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of G. P. No. 5, Pbila. Co., June T., 1905, No. 2,323, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Thomas Yearsley v. Sigmund Glaser. Assumpsit for work and labor done and material furnished. The defendant filed an affidavit of defense which was as follows: That on June 00, 1903, he employed the plaintiff to do certain electrical work installing fans and equipment at 5721 Germantown avenue, Germantown, the said plaintiff agreeing to do the same for the sum of $100. That the said plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Gueiam,
Where the facts set forth in an affidavit of defense, if they exist, are such as must be within the personal knowledge of the defendant, it is reasonable to require that they be averred positively. And if they are so averred, the omission of the usual formula as to information and belief does not render the affidavit defective: Eyre v. Yohe, 67 Pa. 477; Moeck v. Littell, 82 Pa. 354; Newbold v. Pennock, 154 Pa. 591; Wolf v. Jacobs, 187 Pa. 260; Andrews v. Packing Co., 206 Pa. *144370; nor, on the other hand, will the concluding of such an affidavit with the averment that “ all of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Newbold v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Andrews v. Blue Ridge Packing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Wolf v. JacobsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Eyre v. YoheSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Moeck v. LittellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876