Corry v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 181, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 548, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of 'defense. Opinion by W. W. Pobteb, J. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before the court in banc. It appears from the record that the action was assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 181, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 548, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of 'defense. Opinion by W. W. Pobteb, J. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before the court in banc. It appears from the record that the action was assumpsit. Statement and affidavit filed in the case are as follows: The plaintiff, Effie W. Corry, brings this suit against the defendant, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, to recover the sum of $579, which said sum with interest from…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
The act of May 25, 1887, provides that the statement or demand in the action of assumpsit “shallbe accompanied by copies of all notes, contracts, book entries or a particular reference to the records of any court, within the county in which the action is brought, if any, upon which the plaintiff’s claim is founded.”
It provides that after service of the statement is made as required, “it shall be the duty of the defendant in the action of' assumpsit to file an affidavit of defense on or before return day; ” and that. “ judgment may be moved for want of an…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Newbold v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Osborn v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- M'Call v. ForsythSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Menner v. President of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Bartoe v. GuckertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Michigan Ammonia Works v. EllkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911