Doylestown & Danborough Turnpike Road Co. v. Philadelphia & Easton Electric Railway Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 212, Oct. T., 1911, by defendant, from order of C. P. Bucks Co., Feb. T., 1911, No. 6, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Doylestown & Danborough Turnpike Road Company v. Philadelphia & Easton Electric Railway Company. Assumpsit'for rentals. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient, affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 212, Oct. T., 1911, by defendant, from order of C. P. Bucks Co., Feb. T., 1911, No. 6, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Doylestown & Danborough Turnpike Road Company v. Philadelphia & Easton Electric Railway Company. Assumpsit'for rentals. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient, affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned’ was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The several assignments of error present but a single question for our consideration. The learned court below made absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense and the defendant appeals.
The plaintiff sues to recover certain sums of money reserved by way of rental under the terms of a written lease duly executed by both plaintiff and defendant, both of the parties being corporations. The defendant does not deny the execution of the lease; nor that the sums sued for are according to the terms of the lease due and in arrears; nor that by virtue of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Presbyterian Board v. GilbeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Oil Creek & Allegheny River Railroad v. Pennsylvania Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Suburban Rapid Transit Street Railway Co. v. Monongahela Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911