Fish v. Barr
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 198, Oot. T., 1902, by-defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1902, No. 1949, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of James Fish v. Daniel M. Barr. Assumpsit on a contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 198, Oot. T., 1902, by-defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1902, No. 1949, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of James Fish v. Daniel M. Barr. Assumpsit on a contract. Plaintiff in his statement of claim after setting forth the value of four bales of yarn delivered by defendant averred that on September 23,1899, the said Daniel M. Barr secured possession of the said five bales of mixed yarn under an agreement that he would sort out the same, and then, on the following Monday, the said plaintiff and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The plaintiff in his statement demands of the defendant $287.76, the value of five bales of mixed yarn, weighing 1,308 pounds, at the rate of twenty-two cents per pound, which he *134says the defendant procured under an agreement to sort it, when the price would be fixed and paid, or the yarn immediately returned. It is also averred that the yarn was not paid for or returned as agreed. After a supplemental affidavit was allowed, judgment was entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, whereupon this appeal was taken.
The defendant does not deny the plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Galena Mining & Smelting Co. v. FrazierSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Jenkinson v. Hilands, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sprissler v. McFetridgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908