Bell Telephone Co. v. Deakyne
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 52, Oct. T., 1919, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1918, No. 3365, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in the case of the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania v. William.P. Deakyne. Assumpsit on written contract for amount due for telephone service. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 52, Oct. T., 1919, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1918, No. 3365, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in the case of the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania v. William.P. Deakyne. Assumpsit on written contract for amount due for telephone service. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. The court made absolute the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was the decree of the court,
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Keller, J.,
The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant to recover the sum of $56.98 alleged to be due for telephone rental and excess local messages, under written contracts between the parties. The court below entered judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The defendant appealed.
It was admitted in the affidavit of defense that the defendant had signed the several contracts set forth at length in the plaintiff’s statement. The first one was dated October 13, 1914, and went into effect Nov. 1, 1914, for the period of one year. Under it the defendant was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- St. Clair Borough v. Tamaqua & Pottsville Elec. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918