Watsontown Brick & Clay Products Co. v. Bernard
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 135, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co.., March T., 1911, No. 1,035, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Watsontown Brick & Clay Products Company v. Robert Y. Bernard and Howard D. Bernard, copartners, trading as Bernard Brothers. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 135, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co.., March T., 1911, No. 1,035, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Watsontown Brick & Clay Products Company v. Robert Y. Bernard and Howard D. Bernard, copartners, trading as Bernard Brothers. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Where…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Portee, J.,
The plaintiff brought this action of assumpsit to recover of the defendants the balance of the amount alleged to be due for a large number of shale paving blocks sold and delivered. The defendants filed an affidavit of defense which the court below held to be insufficient, and entered judgment for the amount of plaintiff's claim. The defendants appeal from that order.
The appellant’s statement of the question involved in this appeal is as follows: “Can a court enter judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense where the statement of claim fails to annex the entire…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Peoples Street Ry. Co. v. SpencerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Vallee Bros. Electrical Co. v. North Penn Iron Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906