Huey v. Christ
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 78, Jan. T., 1911, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March Term, 1910, No. 2,140, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Arthur T. Huey, Administrator of the Estate of William M. Huey, deceased, v. Amos H. Christ. Assumpsit upon a written agreement between Amos H. Christ and the administrators of his deceased partner, William M. Huey.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 78, Jan. T., 1911, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March Term, 1910, No. 2,140, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Arthur T. Huey, Administrator of the Estate of William M. Huey, deceased, v. Amos H. Christ. Assumpsit upon a written agreement between Amos H. Christ and the administrators of his deceased partner, William M. Huey. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Audenried, J., filed the following opinion: The plaintiff claims $19,604.40 of the defendant. It is conceded that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The order of the court discharging the rule for judgment is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Audenreid. •
2Cited by2 opinions
- MacK Paving & Construction Co. v. American Pipe & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Scheckter v. Rubin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1947