Legal Opinion

Fritz v. McGeehan

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County

Decided June 4, 1923Published

1Opinion of the Court

Koch, J.,

— The plaintiffs filed their statement of claim, and the defendant filed an affidavit of defence to both the merits and the law. Then the plaintiffs took a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, and the defendant subsequently filed another affidavit of defence again raising the same question of law.

It is bad practice to file an affidavit of defence to both the merits and the law of a case, but as the defendant has chosen to meet both the merits and the law, we will dispose of both. I think matters can be made most clear and simple by quoting from the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Bibb v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Fulton Farmers Ass'n v. BombergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. Fowler v. Scully ex rel. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
  4. Clippinger v. HepbaughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
  5. Holt v. GreenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873

24 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