Reliance Manufacturing Co. v. McCurdy
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 31 and 32, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants, from orders of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1910, Nos. 988 and 989, M. L. D. making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Reliance Manufacturing Company v. Peter McCurdy, Owner and Contractor, and Emma B. McCurdy, Present Registered Owner. Rules for judgments for want of sufficient affidavits of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 31 and 32, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants, from orders of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1910, Nos. 988 and 989, M. L. D. making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Reliance Manufacturing Company v. Peter McCurdy, Owner and Contractor, and Emma B. McCurdy, Present Registered Owner. Rules for judgments for want of sufficient affidavits of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was orders making) absolute rules for judgments. The affidavit of defense denies the truth of the plaintiff’s…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
To the sci. fa. sur mechanic’s lien in this case, the defendant, Emma B. McCurdy, for herself and the other defendants, filed an affidavit of defense and later a supplemental affidavit. These affidavits are not inconsistent or contradictory and together they constitute the affidavit of defense and hereafter we will refer to them as such.
Notwithstanding the affidavit of defense the learned court below on rules for judgment made the same absolute and granted judgments against the defendants. The paper-books appear to present two appeals from judgments in favor of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Westmoreland Guarantee Building & Loan Ass'n v. ConnorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Miller v. FitzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Pennock v. Locust Realty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909