Abraham v. Worthington
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 45, April T., 1910, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1908, No. 384, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Caroline M. Abraham and Lillian Balsinger v. Harvey R. Worthington and W. Harry Evans, trading as Harvey R. Worthington & Company. Assumpsit to recover rentals collected by real estate agents. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 45, April T., 1910, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1908, No. 384, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Caroline M. Abraham and Lillian Balsinger v. Harvey R. Worthington and W. Harry Evans, trading as Harvey R. Worthington & Company. Assumpsit to recover rentals collected by real estate agents. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court made absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
The judgment in this case was entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense and the defendants appealed. A careful examination of the declaration, the affidavit and supplemental affidavit of defense, the opinion of the court and the arguments of the respective counsel, leave us with a strong conviction that the learned court erred in making absolute the rule for judgment. In our opinion, the case ought to go to a jury.
The judgment granted was for $350, with interest thereon, for money collected by the defendants as commission on rents, although the money was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jaekel v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Law v. BillingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897