Caven-Williamson Ammonia Co. v. Ice Manufacturing Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 140, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1904, No. 1951, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Caven-Williamson Ammonia Co., Incorporated, v. Ice Manufacturing Company of Germantown. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 140, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1904, No. 1951, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Caven-Williamson Ammonia Co., Incorporated, v. Ice Manufacturing Company of Germantown. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The affidavit of defense was as follows: It is true that the plaintiff company sold and delivered to the defendant the goods set forth in plaintiff’s statement of claim and more particularly in exhibit “ A,” attached thereto. Defendant, however, avers that they have an…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
It has been decided by the Supreme and this court a number of times that one of the rules most inflexibly held respecting affidavits of defense is that every matter of defense presented must be set forth specifically, and with such detail as to show, clearly and definitely its relation to the plaintiff’s claim. Nothing must be left to inference and what is not stated must be regarded as not existing. Its averments must form a complete answer to the plaintiff’s demands : Kyler v. Christman, 23 Pa. Superior Ct. 548. The force of this unbending rule of practice is not…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Peale v. AddicksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Carnahan Stamping & Enameling Co. v. FoleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Kyler v. ChristmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
3Cited by1 opinion
- Biernbaum v. FosterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912