Pierson v. Krause
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 97, Jan. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., Sept. T., Í902, No. 1041, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of George W. Pierson v. Bernard J. Krause, trading as William Krause & Son.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 97, Jan. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., Sept. T., Í902, No. 1041, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of George W. Pierson v. Bernard J. Krause, trading as William Krause & Son. Rule on defendant for judgment against Mm for the amount as to which the affidavit of defense is insufficient with leave to proceed as to that part of the plaintiff’s claim as to which the affidavit of defense is sufficient to prevent judgment. This rule was made absolute by the following order: “ Rule absolute for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb.. Justice Bbown,
This is an action of assumpsit for the recovery of $8,337.57, for alleged breaches of two written contracts. To plaintiff’s statement of his cause of action an affidavit of defense was filed, and thereupon two rules were taken for judgment against the defendant. One was for judgment for the whole of the claim for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, and the other, for judgment against the defendant “ for the amount as to which the affidavit of defense is insufficient, with leave to proceed as to that part of the plaintiff’s claim as to which the affidavit is…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Law v. WaldronSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Smucker v. GrinbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Harding, Whitman & Co. v. York Knitting MillsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Pennsylvania · 1905
- Moore v. EyreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Tacony Iron Co. v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.