Albert Hall, Inc. v. John Hancock

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Albert Hall, Inc. v. John Hancock

92 Pa. Super. 512, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 62

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 13, 1927

DocketAppeal 373

StatusPublished

This text of 92 Pa. Super. 512 (Albert Hall, Inc. v. John Hancock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert Hall, Inc. v. John Hancock, 92 Pa. Super. 512, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 62 (Pa. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

The assignments of error are 1 — to the entry of judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, and 2, to the refusal to open the judgment so entered to permit defendant to argue the motion for judgment, the petition stating that the motion was argued in the absence of defendant’s attorney.

The suit is to recover $275 which defendant in writing agreed to pay to plaintiff “upon collection of rentals ......up to August 31, 1927, in the sum of $529 ......; ” the statement alleges that defendant collected those rentals, but refused to pay as agreed. The averment in the affidavit of defense is that a part of the sum “had been collected by the real owner of the property” and “that the balance was remitted by [defendant] to [plaintiff’s principal].” Those allegations have no apparent relation to the contract averred in the statement.

Defendant admits the execution of the contract, and his promise to pay to plaintiff “upon collection of rentals ”; if they were collected as defendant concedes, the condition has been fulfilled, payment is due, and plaintiff is entitled to the judgment.

No argument could change the effect of defendant’s averments; as no other defense is suggested, the court properly refused to open.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

The assignments of error are 1 — to the entry of judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, and 2, to the refusal to open the judgment so entered to permit defendant to argue the motion for judgment, the petition stating that the motion was argued in the absence of defendant’s attorney.

The suit is to recover $275 which defendant in writing agreed to pay to plaintiff “upon collection of rentals ......up to August 31, 1927, in the sum of $529 ......; ” the statement alleges that defendant collected those rentals, but refused to pay as agreed. The averment in the affidavit of defense is that a part of the sum “had been collected by the real owner of the property” and “that the balance was remitted by [defendant] to [plaintiff’s principal].” Those allegations have no apparent relation to the contract averred in the statement.

Defendant admits the execution of the contract, and his promise to pay to plaintiff “upon collection of rentals ”; if they were collected as defendant concedes, the condition has been fulfilled, payment is due, and plaintiff is entitled to the judgment.

No argument could change the effect of defendant’s averments; as no other defense is suggested, the court properly refused to open.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 Pa. Super. 512, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-hall-inc-v-john-hancock-pasuperct-1927.