Smith v. Faust
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Keller, J.,
Judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense ought not to be entered when a material averment in the plaintiff’s statement, on which his right to recover a judgment depends, is sufficiently denied or disputed in the affidavit. The same rule applies to the entry of judgment in favor of a defendant for want of a sufficient plaintiff’s reply. On careful consideration of all the pleadings, — which by reason of many amendments are somewhat complicated, — we are of opinion that judgment should not have been entered against the plaintiff for want of a sufficient reply…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Schwartz v. SaundersIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Bauer v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Reed v. LukensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- Insurance Co. v. UpdegraffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Cramp & Co. v. Central Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dubin Paper Co. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Sack v. Glens Falls InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Garman Bros. v. Hoover Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Kunkel v. Aircraft Control Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930