Moore v. Phillips
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 314, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, Marshall A. Phillips, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 538, entering judgment in favor of plaintiff, Alfred William Moore, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit on judgment entered in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, in London. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 314, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, Marshall A. Phillips, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 538, entering judgment in favor of plaintiff, Alfred William Moore, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit on judgment entered in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, in London. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. The affidavit of defence averred that deponent had been visiting London, and whilst there resided temporarily at 139 Hopton road; that on March 15, 1891, deponent gave up his temporary residence on…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
We think judgment was properly entered for want of a suffi*206cient affidavit of defence. The averment in the affidavit that, “ if an appearance was entered by Herbert F. Oddy for your deponent, your deponent had no knowledge of it whatsoever,” is evasive. The defendant does not deny, as he should have done, if the fact be so, that he had not authorized the attorney to enter an appearance for him. He might have authorized him to enter such an appearance, and yet have no actual knowledge that it bad been done.
Judgment affirmed.