Pennsylvania R. R. v. Davenport
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 81, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1892, No. 303, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit for freight charges.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 81, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1892, No. 303, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit for freight charges. The defendant filed an affidavit of defence in which he averred that plaintiff had “ used this identical claim of 1182.36 as a set-off in an affidavit of defence in another proceeding between the same parties, in which the Pennsylvania R. R. Co. is defendant, and J. Davenport is plaintiff, in the court of common pleas No. 2, June T., 1892, No. 157, and said defendant brings this…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We think the affidavit of defence in this case was sufficient. It set forth that the appellant company had used the identical *112claim on which this suit was brought as a set-off in an affidavit of defence in another proceeding between the same parties, in which the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, appellant, is defendant, and the said J. Davenport is plaintiff, in the court of common pleas No. 2, No. 157 of June Term, 1892.
The plaintiff has thus two suits pending for the same cause of action, to wit: the present, which is a direct suit, and a set-off in the action in the court of…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Davis Cookie Co., Inc. v. WasleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Feather v. HusteadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- National Metal Edge Box Co. v. American Metal Edge Box Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Speier v. Locust Laundry, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Hershey v. McLaughlinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.