Taylor v. Sellers
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1899, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1898, No. 44, for want of a sufficient affidavit 'of defense. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before the court in banc. It appears from the record that this action was brought by-plaintiffs, who were real estate agents and brokers, to recover commission for the sale of a certain piece of real estate.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1899, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1898, No. 44, for want of a sufficient affidavit 'of defense. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before the court in banc. It appears from the record that this action was brought by-plaintiffs, who were real estate agents and brokers, to recover commission for the sale of a certain piece of real estate. An affidavit of defense which set up a complete defense to the statement was filed by the son of defendant. By a supplemental affidavit which the court permitted to be…
1Opinion of the Court
Peb Curiam,
The affidavit of defense was filed by the son of the defendant, who, according to the allegations of the statement of claim, made the contract sued upon as the duly authorized agent of the defendant. It fully and unequivocally denied the making of the contract; in short, presented a complete defense. But it was insufficient to prevent judgment, because it did not set forth that the affiant was authorized by the defendant to make it, ■nor give the reasons why it was not made by her: 1 P. & L. Dig. of Dec. Col. 128; Griel v. Buckius, 114 Pa. 187. This defect was cured by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Griel v. BuckiusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bushong v. EdwardsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Phillips v. AllenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907