Phila. & Reading R. R. v. Snowdon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 53, July T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1893, No. 10, making-absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in foreign attachment in assumpsit against a surety on an account rendered. From the record it appeared that defendant filed a general appearance.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 53, July T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1893, No. 10, making-absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in foreign attachment in assumpsit against a surety on an account rendered. From the record it appeared that defendant filed a general appearance. Plaintiffs in their statement averred: “ That plaintiff claims to recover from defendant the sum of 1590.91, with interest from May 3,1892. The particulars of said claims are as follows: “ That on…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We are satisfied from an examination of this record that the court was right in adjudging the affidavit of defence insufficient to carry the case to the jury, and hence there was no error in entering judgment for the plaintiff. There is no merit in either-of the specifications of error.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- King v. Security Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Edward F. Gerber Co. v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1914
- McBride v. Bartol, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County1924