Township of Hazle v. Markle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 300, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1895, No. Ill, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on the bond of a supervisor. The plaintiff’s statement averred that the sum claimed in the suit, $3,802.85, had been found due by William Carter as supervisor to plaintiff on an appeal from the report of the township auditors.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 300, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1895, No. Ill, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on the bond of a supervisor. The plaintiff’s statement averred that the sum claimed in the suit, $3,802.85, had been found due by William Carter as supervisor to plaintiff on an appeal from the report of the township auditors. A. Marble, who was one of the sureties of William Carter, filed an affidavit of defense which was as follows: 1st. That no condition of the bond, which is the subject-matter of this…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We are not convinced that the learned court erred in discharging the plaintiff’s rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. There is no merit in the suggestion of counsel that the action of the court may be sustained on the ground that, under our procedure act of May 25,1887, no affidavit of defense is required, because the suit is on the official bond of the principal defendant. The only ground on which the refusal to enter judgment etc. can be sustained is that the affidavit of defense is sufficiently responsive to the averments contained in plaintiff’s…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co.'s AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Commonwealth v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Commonwealth v. GouldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Edward F. Gerber Co. v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1914