Legal Opinion

Azar v. Markle

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 23, 1933No. Appeal, 30PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam,

This appeal is from judgment for defendants entered for the reason that plaintiff’s statement of claim fails to set forth a sufficient cause of action.

Ordinarily, we are loath to sustain judgment on an affidavit of defense which merely sets up insufficiency of the statement of claim without giving plaintiff an opportunity to amend (Seaman v. Tamaqua N. B., 280 Pa. 124, 127; Stevens v. Smith, and Stevens v. Doylestown B. & L. Assn., 310 Pa. 287, and cases there cited); in the present case, however, plaintiff, at argument, stated he Avould stand on his claim as presented, which is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Norcross v. Otis Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Garland v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Stevens v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Seaman v. Tamaqua National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. College Watercolor Group, Inc. v. William H. Newbauer, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Matter of LarsenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Smyth v. Fidel. Dep. Co. of Md.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Christo v. Tuscany, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Locker v. Hudson Coal Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1953

4 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