Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Acker

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 27, 1913No. Appeal, No. 271PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal, No. 271, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June Term, 1912, No. 2,868, discharging rule for judgment for want of affidavit of defense in case of Commonwealth to use of William Wagner, Jr., v. A. Lincoln Acker, Sheriff, and the Maryland Casualty Company. Assumpsit against sheriff and his bondsmen. Rule for judgment for want of an affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 271, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June Term, 1912, No. 2,868, discharging rule for judgment for want of affidavit of defense in case of Commonwealth to use of William Wagner, Jr., v. A. Lincoln Acker, Sheriff, and the Maryland Casualty Company. Assumpsit against sheriff and his bondsmen. Rule for judgment for want of an affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment for want of an affidavit of defense.

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

In the first case involving the practice under the Procedure Act of May 25, 1887, P, L. 271, which reached the Supreme Court, it was held that an insufficient statement does not require an affidavit of defense: Gould v. Gage, 118 Pa. 559. In the later case of Chestnut Street Nat. Bank v. Ellis, 161 Pa. 241, the rule was declared, that, to entitle a plaintiff to judgment for want of an affidavit of *56defense, or for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, the statement of his demand under the act of 1887 must be self-sustaining; that is to say, it must set forth in clear and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chestnut Street National Bank v. EllisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
  2. Gould & Co. v. Gage, Hitchcock & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
  3. Rosenblatt v. WeinmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  4. Black v. IsaacmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Feldman, Armon & Co. v. LodgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API