Davis v. Komer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 42, March T., 1912, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1910, No. 1,296, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of C. R. Davis and Reese Davis, trading as C. R. Davis & Son, v. Frank Komer. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mobkison, J.,
The plaintiff declared for lumber sold and delivered to the defendant and in the claim, as filed, we find the following:
“June 27 5 pcs. 1x10x16 W. P.
3 pcs. 1x8x16 W. P.
8 pcs. 1x6x16 W. P.
5 pcs. 1x3x12 W. P.
54 lin. ft. 1x4
196 ft. @..... 9.80
275 lin. ft. |x|“ stop .. ........... 2.75”
In addition to this the declaration contains the following items: “Leaded and plate glass as per estimate 90.00; shelving and wainscoting as per estimate 55.00.” We are clearly of the opinion that the above-quoted items are so indefinite and uncertain that no duty is imposed on the defendant…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wilson v. Bryn Mawr Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Altoona Concrete Construction & Supply Co. v. Knickerbocker Contracting Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Leek v. Livingston Manor Manufacturing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Northwest Building & Loan Ass'n v. GodfreySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909