Legal Opinion

Smith v. Faust

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 25, 1927No. Appeal 200PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Schwartz v. SaundersIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Bauer v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  3. Reed v. LukensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
  4. Insurance Co. v. UpdegraffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
  5. Cramp & Co. v. Central Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dubin Paper Co. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Sack v. Glens Falls InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  3. Garman Bros. v. Hoover Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  4. Kunkel v. Aircraft Control Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API