Legal Opinion

Tide Water Associated Oil Co. v. Kay

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1951No. Appeal, No. 216PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

The judgment here on appeal was entered on the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff company and against the defendant in the sum of $1,254.74. At the argument below, prior to the entry of judgment, defendant’s oral motion for leave to amend her affidavit of defense was denied. In the light of the rule that the power of entering summary judgment should be cautiously exercised (Holladay v. Fidler, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 100,. 43 A. 2d 919) we may not assume that the defendant' cannot plead a good defense to the claim,-in whole or in part. The judgment will be set aside and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. SunseriSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. Stevens v. Doylestown Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Holladay v. FidlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. Egner v. McGinnisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Chorba v. Davlisa Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Bogojavlensky v. LoganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. Slater v. Pearle Vision Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Triffin v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Ehrenzeller v. ChubbSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1952

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API