Gilbert v. Steinmetz

Stewart, P. J.,

This is a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. The plaintiffs have assigned seven reasons why the rule should be made absolute, but the sum of the reasons is that the affidavit of defence is insufficient by reason of general denials and that it contains admissions of the vital points of plaintiffs’ statement and sets up no facts as a defence. Defendant counters by alleging that the plaintiffs’ statement is deficient and that it would not support a judgment. In the leading *328case of Parry v. First National Bank of Lansford, 270 Pa. 556, it was held: “A…