Ganor v. Hinrichs
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal No. 25, Nov. T., 1896, by Alfred Hoegerle, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 849, in favor of plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit to recover $591 for services. The docket entries disclose the record as follows: Other facts appear from the opinion of the Superior Court. Errors assigned were, (1) entering judgment for plaintiff; (2) entering judgment for amount admitted.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The plaintiff sued Gustav Hinrichs and Alfred Hoegerle, *524now or lately trading as The Hinrichs Grand Opera Co., and claimed to recover a balance of $591 for services rendered in the years 1898, 1894, 1895 as an opera singer under a contract with the defendants.
Hoegerle filed an affidavit of defense, of which the following is the material part: “ Deponent has been sued with Gustav Hinrichs, now or lately trading as ‘ The Hinrichs Grand Opera Company.’ That no such partnership ever existed between deponent and Gustav Hinrichs or any other person. That deponent never…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Reilly v. DalySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Muir v. ShinnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- City of New Castle v. New Castle Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cain v. RedlichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Gatrell v. Salt Lake CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1944
- Stuckert v. WedgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911