Lane v. Penn Glass Sand Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 54, Oct. T., 1895, by defendant, from order of C. P. Venango Co., April T., 1894, No. 25, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of an affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a contract for furnishing and erecting machinery and mill plant.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 54, Oct. T., 1895, by defendant, from order of C. P. Venango Co., April T., 1894, No. 25, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of an affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a contract for furnishing and erecting machinery and mill plant. Plaintiffs filed the following statement: H. H. Lane, the assignor, and one of the plaintiffs as above, being duly sworn, says that the causes for which the above action has been brought are as follows, to wit: On March 30, 1893, the above plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the said Penn Glass Sand Company, a copy of which agreement is…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,
Pending the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense to the plaintiffs’ claim as presented in their statement, the defendant company filed a supplemental affidavit. It was afterwards suggested by the court that, if the plaintiffs so desired, leave would be granted them to withdraw all the items of their claim except the 1st, 13th, 14th and 15th, and the rule for judgment would be made absolute for the amount of these excepted items, less payments made on account thereof. Acting upon this suggestion they withdrew the 2d to 12th items…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Sisney v. DiffenderfferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Hutton v. McLaughlinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Hoopes v. Northern Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1900
- Louchheim v. MaguireSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- A. G. Breitweiser Lumber Co. v. CrickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.