Binswanger v. Dearden

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Binswanger v. Dearden

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

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 3, 1890

DocketNo. 56

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A. 32 (Binswanger v. Dearden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

We are of the opinion that the affidavit of defence was suf[231]*231ficient 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]*231ficient 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A. 32, 132 Pa. 229, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/binswanger-v-dearden-pa-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack