Binswanger v. Dearden

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Binswanger v. Dearden

19 A. 32, 132 Pa. 229, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 801

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 3, 1890·No. No. 56·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

We are of the opinion that the affidavit of defence was suf[231] ficient to carry the case to a jury. The same reasons which render an opinion of doubtful propriety, in cases of appeals from preliminary injunctions, apply with equal force when we affirm an order of the court below refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. The ease must go to a jury, and may come up again after a verdict. The less we say about it now the better.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam :

We are of the opinion that the affidavit of defence was suf[231] ficient to carry the case to a jury. The same reasons which render an opinion of doubtful propriety, in cases of appeals from preliminary injunctions, apply with equal force when we affirm an order of the court below refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. The ease must go to a jury, and may come up again after a verdict. The less we say about it now the better.

Affirmed.

Binswanger v. Dearden, 19 A. 32, 132 Pa. 229, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 801 (Pa. 1890).

Pincite

19 A. 32 (Binswanger v. Dearden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related