Mathers v. Verna
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 4, Oct. T., 1911, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 485, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Estate of Joseph W. Mathers and Frank F. Mathers, trading as J. W. Mathers & Sons, v. Luigi Verna, Sr. Assumpsit on book accounts for coal sold and delivered. The statement of claim showed thirty-three deliveries on various dates for several months of one or two tons each.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 4, Oct. T., 1911, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 485, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Estate of Joseph W. Mathers and Frank F. Mathers, trading as J. W. Mathers & Sons, v. Luigi Verna, Sr. Assumpsit on book accounts for coal sold and delivered. The statement of claim showed thirty-three deliveries on various dates for several months of one or two tons each. The defendant in his affidavit of defense averred, inter alia, as follows: Deponent says that he frequently complained to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
“An affidavit of defense should set forth fully and fairly, facts sufficient to show prima facie a good defense, and if it fails to do so, either from omission of essential facts, or manifest evasion in the mode of statement, it will be insufficient to prevent judgment:” Sprissler v. McFetridge, 37 Pa. Superior Ct. 607. This well settled principle is applicable to the present case, as is clearly shown by the opinion of the learned judge of the common pleas.
1. Presumably, in the absence of averment to the contrary, it was within the power of the defendant to specify the number,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sprissler v. McFetridgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mutual Union Brewing Co. v. DithrichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913