Legal Opinion

Ridley Park Borough v. American Surety Co. of New York

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 14, 1935No. Appeal, 94PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the court below discharging its rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The order is right.

The pleadings in that court were a statement of claim; an affidavit of defense accompanied by a notice of new matter; plaintiff’s reply to the new matter; and a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Two reasons are given for the discharge of the rule. The first is that “the filing of [a reply] to the affidavit of defense (here a reply to new matter in the affidavit, which new matter deals with the merits of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Federal Sales Co. v. FarrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  2. Rodgers v. MannSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Elliott v. McGounSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. National Realty Appraisal Co. v. Art ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Bean v. Harleysville National BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Drummond v. ParrishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  4. Pennsylvania Institutional Health Services, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of CorrectionsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Roddy v. United States Fire Insurance, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County1935

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API