Woods v. Watkins
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was a foreign attachment in case to July Term 1860, by William P. Watkins against William Woods, a non-resident of Pennsylvania, in which, with his praecipe, the plaintiff filed a special affidavit stating the amount which he verily believed to be due from the defendant, and, with his declaration, copies of the promissory notes on which the suit was brought.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was a foreign attachment in case to July Term 1860, by William P. Watkins against William Woods, a non-resident of Pennsylvania, in which, with his praecipe, the plaintiff filed a special affidavit stating the amount which he verily believed to be due from the defendant, and, with his declaration, copies of the promissory notes on which the suit was brought. Judgment was had by the plaintiff, after the third term, in default of appearance. Subsequently, on application of defendant’s counsel, he was allowed to appear and file his affidavit…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Read, J.. There is nothing in the objection to the want of regularity, on the part of the plaintiff below, in not complying with the rule of court. He filed with his prceeipe a declaration, a special affidavit stating the amount verily believed to be due from the defendant, and copies of the promissory notes on which the action was brought. This is all the rule required, and the affidavit was properly sworn to before a proper officer.
The affidavit of defence is evasive, and studiously avoids stating what it evidently intends the court shall believe is…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Peabody v. CarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Midvale Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Cummins Diesel Sales & Service, Inc. v. Ramsey, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, York County1950